The Founders limited "treason" in the Constitution due to grave concerns it would be weaponized to criminalize dissent: exactly how the term is now routinely used.
Tulsi Gabbard should consider it a badge of honor that a draft-dodging, deep-state puppet like Romney would call her a traitor -- it only shows she is over the target. Romney is a pathetic representation of the past and Gabbard is the future.
Romney has a lot to hide: Romney has business in Ukraine, just like Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and he was complicit in the 2020 Election Fraud, with GA Gov. Kemp, Raffensperger, AZ Gov. Ducey, and many other RINO's.
By the way: it was us (The USA) who invaded Ukraine: in 2014, with a Coup d'Etat. Guess who was involved in that Coup? Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Victoria Nuland, John Brennan and... John McCain - article here: https://gregrubini.substack.com/p/massacre-ukraine-2014 - Since RINO McCain was involved, certainly also this other RINO, Romney was in it, too: this is why that dog barks at Tulsi Gabbard. Dem's + RINO's = UniParty (all tools of the CIA)
Misdirection is a highly effective tool, especially when used against a 280-character attention span, easily triggered populace. Or as Matt Taibbi said in his brilliant piece last Sunday: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/orwell-was-right?s=r
"The ideal citizen of Orwell’s Oceania bubbled with rage a mile wide and a millimeter deep and could forget in an instant passions that may have consumed him or her for years."
I like that, "Treason is the new unvaccinated." The impulse for both is the compulsion to demonize those who question the official government/corporate line.
The DNC cant do shit but point at the other team and blame because if they point at themselves you will see 0 actual results in 60+ years of total control.
Look at Baltimore, St. Louis and New Orleans in terms of crime.
I have a 75 year old friend, a lifelong resident of Baltimore, where after fifty years of Democratic control the city has sunk into a dystopian crime sewer. Yet he proudly proclaims that "I'd vote for Mickey Mouse before I'd vote for a Republican for mayor." It's like talking to a Scientologist.
I’ve used this perfect reference multiple times. It elicits either a spit-take from the old or a blank stare from the generations who would benefit the most.
We all owe an eternal debt to David Frum et al. for instilling this binary team logic on us back during the War on Terror. But you can draw a fairly straight line from there through the NeverTrumpers, Coronatards, and now the current-day version: "You either support ramping up a disastrous military response in Ukraine, or you're a Putin apologist. And therefore treasonous."
Worse, "You must accept that there was no fault or mis-steps in our actions, policies, diplomacy in the years and months leading to this war, so the only possible blame falls solely on Putin. And even if you believe that Putin is a monster who has unleashed indefensible war actions, you must also accept that there are no gray areas where we could do anything, then or now, other than exactly what we're doing for no less cause than saving democracy and freedom - there is no other path than ours. And, as always, it's Trump's fault. - Anything other than a full throated war cry is treason"
Agreed. My use of "et al" above was specifically a reference to Atlantic neocon Anne Applebaum, who Tweetblamed "Mearsheimer et al" for __providing the Russians with a convenient pretext to invade__! As if everything Mearsheimer (who, after all, is a non-progressive realpolitik strategist) said DIDN'T HAPPEN.
We have become spectators in the Roman Coliseum watching gladiators fight to the death. Americans are distant from the war and watch it at home but the emotional pitches of commenters makes it seem like we are involved. The sanction war is an overlay of a terrible ground war but its only Ukrainians and Russians dying. The sanctions are the new drones - a way to fight without spilling a drop of blood.
"Aaron Maté said something to the effect of “the truth has a mask mandate. “"
The conversational use of "whataboutism and/or doublethink has indeed been exercised when desperate uninformed rhetoric is proffered in hopes of not being recognized as covert falsity.
See:
Matt Taibbi: Orwell Was Right - scheerpost.comhttps://scheerpost.com › 2022/03/13 › matt-taibbi-orwel...
3 days ago — We even have our own borrowed Newspeak word for the offense: Whataboutism. The offender supposedly does a bait-and-switch,
Don't overstep. The US did not invade the Ukraine and to say we did is laughable. You can read some background here ...https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you-need-to-know. Putin was funding separatist rebels. The article you cite presents no evidence of anything, just one guy's overheated conspiracy theory. For more detail go here...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War. Putin invaded portions of the Ukraine in 2014 and then invaded the Crimea which was part of the Ukraine.
Just watched Oliver Stone's "Ukraine on Fire". Ukraine is evenly split between those who want closer ties with Russia (the Eastern half, and the Crimea) and those who are EU-centric (the Western half, who, inconveniently, are heavily supported by large, powerful real-life Nazi factions,, including in their military).
It's a clusterfuck, and unfortunately 99.9% of Americans will never know the first thing about Ukraine's history, including the U.S. backed "revolution", which Nuland is caught on tape helping to orchestrate. Don't think we should get involved. Does that make me a traitor too?
None of that word salad changes the fact that the US did not invade the Ukraine. Putin has said on the open airwaves that he thinks Ukraine is "part of Russia". Hitler thought Austria was "part of Germany". Xi thinks Taiwan is "part of Communist China". And by all accounts I've seen, the Ukraine is not evenly split. The Ukrainians I know remember what happened the last time Russia was in control. The popular talking point about "the Ukraine is full of Nazi's" is straight from Putin's playbook. None of this matters to those who think that the US is the cause of all the world's problems and there are many of those here.
Hey iconoclast, what did Stalin’s guys do in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria? I suppose those were all peaceful and democratic takeovers. What about meddling in other countries there?
I have an embarrassing admission. I went to, let’s say, a pretty good college decades ago with someone I now believe was a family member. Not one of us expensively educated buffoons even recognized his surname. Memory holes have always been America’s finest product.
Heil Azov Batallion. And we did help to overthrow a legally-elected government there, which makes us much smarter than that idiot Putin. Tanks are so 20th century.
"None of this matters to those who think that the US is the cause of all the world's problems and there are many of those here."
You're the world's policeman. The leader of the free world and all that other bullshit that they burned into you since birth. So yeah, wear it pal. Wear it.
You broke it, you own it.
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009 *
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
I don’t know if “full of Nazis” works for me tbh. All right wing parties poll in very low numbers in Ukraine. At the same time Azov and even weirder groups have been integrated with the military which now tweets out the Schwarzesonne like it’s nbd. I’ve said elsewhere I picture the Nazis in Ukraine sort of like the mafia is, or was, in Sicily. Not necessarily popular but able to project lots of power and commit a lot of crime through the use of discipline and violence.
That is why the Russian armed forces are so bogged down in the east and south. The locals keep coming out to thank the tank drivers and offer them tea. Were it not for the gratitude of the locals slowing them down the whole east bank of the Dnieper would have been liberated. Everyone who believes this, raise your hand, the short bus has arrived to drive you back home. As always, you guys area riot. Never have 15 people brought so many smiles to the world. You are not a traitor, John. Your admission that an OliverStone video is your main source of information on Ukraine says enough.
Oh my, you actually have coworkers from there. Great sample size. So far, 2.4 Million Ukrainians have fled Ukraine, these are mostly Eastern Ukrainians. Of these refugees, about 57,000 chose to go to Russia. Do I doubt there are pro-Putinites in Ukraine? No. You exaggerate. This is the most widely covered war in history. There is no excuse not to learn from it.
Crawl back in your hole. The entire world sees what is going on. They agree. That you don’t see reflects poorly on you. You stand with Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea.
Ok, Meyer. How do they compare to the elections in Belarus? Russia? No musical chairs there. No pantomimes to amuse you. Compared to its eastern and northern neighbors, the Ukraine had a vibrant and open democratic system. Since the 2014 Maidan revolution, the power of the oligarchs was diminished and the government exhibited a degree of transparency unmatched in any former Soviet Republic with the exception of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. You re a bullshitter. Don't waste my time with your bullshit.
I was referring to the comment another reader made about Ukraine being split 'evenly' between East and West learners, nothing else. I wasn't saying they were undemocratic.
Switzerland just dropped its neutrality to impose sanctions on Russia. The Ukraine has been eyed by foreign powers since the Mongol invasion. Today, neutrality would not matter in the face of Russia’s unwillingness to recognize Ukrainians as a nation and the Ukraine as a sovereign country. Russia would still seek dominance and control over a neutral Ukraine. Aggressors can be like that.
Let's not let semantics obscure truth here. If, by your definition, "invade" implies overt military action, then yes ok, the US did not "invade" the Ukraine. But our CIA (directed by the people Greg Rubini mentions) did engage in clandestine activity to facilitate the overthrow of the Ukraine's *democratically* elected president, Victor Yanukovych. Our CIA has done this many times before -- most notably when we overthrew Mosaddeq in Iran (replacing him with the brutal, tyrannical Shah we propped up for decades). Chalmers Johnson, long time US foreign policy advisor, talks about all this here:
As for "funding separatist rebels": We funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to deliberately attack Russians. We GAVE them Stinger Missiles!! With that context, it's hard to see how you can fault Putin a whole lot. At least the separatists he funded were on his critical border, and the people there wanted to get out of the Ukraine that our CIA had created.
A much more thorough presentation of the Ukraine situation can be found in John Mearsheimer's 2015 (!!!) University of Chicago lecture here:
You proof, alternative radio and a youtube video? The notion that Nuland orchestrated a coup in Ukraine is so one dimensional, based on no understanding of the Euromaidan revolution and the forces that it unleashed, that it is laughable. Your defense of Yanukovych as a democratically elected president is even. more laughable. That several thousand people in the US, like you, believe the CIA orchestrated Maidan is not surprising. In a nation as large as this, with the freedom of thought and communications we are afforded, have, tens of thousands of people believe they have had direct contact with ETs. In fact there are TV programs and Harvard professors who support them. Sometimes being in the minority on an issue is a tell that you may be mistaken. Mearsheimer, in the other hand, is an academic and an isolationist. He has no skin in the game when he argues for spheres of influence and denies that small nations have agency. He proves nothing. Winston Churchill was a real conservative, he did not recognize Poland as a nation that needed to be sacrificed on the altar of German interests. The world is lucky he did not. You could read more, or if that is too much work for you, you could look up the Center for Political Innovation. They might be right up your alley.
What's telling about your post is that your method of discrediting my sources is to characterize them as 'Alternative Radio' and 'YouTube', when in fact, they are Chalmers Johnson AT The University of Washington, and John Mearsheimer AT The University of Chicago. Are you saying that the mere fact they were RE-POSTED (and on multiple sites, btw) invalidates the credibility of the speakers and their academic institutions? Pretty pathetic.
As for believing the CIA orchestrated Maidan... Since CIA information about their premeditated role in the Iran coup is now unclassified, we know *from their own documents* that indeed they engage in this kind of thing. Does that alone prove that they orchestrated Maidan? No, but it should provoke curiosity. Without a doubt it proves that the possibility of CIA orchestration is infinitely more plausible than "UFOs" (your supposed analogy). I've read dozens of documents, and the evidence is clear: There was significant covert US astroturfing of the "revolution." So, perhaps your underlying desire is actually that you simply would like to see the Ukraine "sacrificed on the alter of US interests".
Hes just trying to argue details with you while deflecting the larger point which he knows any student of history is aware of, which is that the US totally regime changed Ukraine.
This is not in disupte, except by shitlords like the J V team below.
He tried to do the same to "Google", when of course we know that the reality for all those mediums is that they can, and do point to genuine facts and history. The trick is, as always, sorting it out. Something that Krycek here will not do, can not do.
Iran and the Maidan, 2 different things. Both are well documented. What is the point? You draw from a very narrow spectrum of opinion snd their is no evidence that you have synthesized anything you’ve read or watched at all. You are regurgitating. Besides, your sourcing is sophomoric. You cite three sources that agree with you position and you present them as fact. Taking some else’s opinion and citing them does not prove anything. It merely convinced the curious that you have nothing original to add. Do you know what a greek chorus is?
It's interesting to see you mock others for underestimating small nations' "agency" while at the same time insisting Yanukovych was a Russian puppet, since, if that were the case, then you'd have to concede that there's nothing strange at all about the understanding that large nations orchestrate regimes in small nations, including in modern-day Ukraine.
It's also interesting to see you mock supposed underestimation of small nations' agency even while you underestimate the agency of the wealthiest, most imperialistic nation the world has ever seen. This would be strange even if the US hadn't spent the past 75 years pursuing and achieving regime change and destabilization all around the world, especially but not exclusively in "small nations."
Also, your Churchill analogy is absurd for a number of reasons. Here are just a few: 1939 Germany aimed to conquer the UK along with the rest of Europe, which is a ridiculous fever dream when applied to 2022 Russia; Churchill literally ceded Poland to Soviet control at the end of WW2, which was of course just another example of more powerful nations deciding the fates of less powerful ones; and, oh yeah, Churchill wasn't risking global nuclear annihilation, since nuclear weapons didn't exist yet.
All of that is irrelevant when Putin is stating the reason for this is Ukraine's repeated desire to join NATO which came under Petroshenko who was Biden's butt buddy.
1) Prior to 2014, the year of the Maidan, Ukrainian politics were largely a contest played out by local oligarchs. The majority of these oligarchs preferred the Old Soviet mode of doing business with fortunes generated from corrupt privatization schemes where national assets were delivered to powerful insiders at a fraction of there true value. This policy is still intact in Russia and Belarus. Yanukovych was a creature of these politics, he was a local Donetsk thug in the service the local coal and steel oligarchs. They had a genuine interest in extinguishing any idea of western integration and maintaining the old system. These are just the facts. If you familiarized yourself with the post- Soviet Ukraine, it was obvious that there were some significant pro-Russian elements jn Ukraine. Yanukovych was one of them, a pro-Russian tool who had no where to flee except for Russia. 2)The US is an imperialist nation, so? I supported the right of the Vietnamese and the Afghans to struggle to regain agency. Not all small countries are as fortunate. That said, what of the Chechens? The Tibetans? The Kurds? Should they have no agency? 3) By 1939, Churchill had been arguing for a stronger position against Germany since the occupation of the Ruhr. Churchill could easily have surrendered Poland as a nation too distant and too foreign to worry about. Then came the invasion of France and Dunkirk. You seem fuzzy in the facts. Hitler’s goal was always Russia. He simply hoped to find acquiescence in the west with puppets like Petain. Churchill and Britain however would not yield. Ar the same time, Churchill was an imperialist and colonialist hack. Sometimes a person can be a vessel of both courage and villainy.. As for mocking others, there is polite way to respond to didacts and cynics.
Your sources? From your tone, it seems as if you only want to argue. If that's the case, no more from me. However, if you have more behind your position than everything Greenwald has stated is laughable, I would be interested.
Yet churchill recognized that Poland can be sacrificed on the altar of Stalin's interests and recognized USSR sphere of influence.
The US and the Uk are not interfering in other countries affairs ever. At no level whatsoever. They have no foreign interests. Also, they didn't invade Serbia, Irak, Afghanistan, Libia, Syria, Vietnam etc and saddam had weapons of mass destruction while irakian soldiers were killing babies in incubators. If any of the above is false it's because I only heard it in an YouTube video. This info can't be found anywhere else and mainstream sources are denying all of the above which is clearly misinformation. Call the thought police.
Good to hear from a man who laughs a lot. Repeat what you said before a mirror and you'll bend over with laughing. Then again and you'll have thousands who fall down laughing. You must be a yoga laughter master.
Tell me, what history have you read about Ukraine? Name a single book written by a reputable source. That is all I’m asking. If you had read history, you wouldn’t be snipping at me.
No one held a plebiscite on invading Iraq. One of the largest anti - war demonstrations was held in DC before they began the war. A small clique of madmen started that war. Despite the lies and the media complicity most Americans did not support the objectives of the war. When no WMDs were found, support sank further. Support for the troops, however, is much different than support for the war. You seem to believe in the power of government lies and the stupidity of the people. To your initial point, small ideological groupules often imagine themselves to be the sole font to truth in a world filled with deceit and disinformation. In their little groups, they find cohesion among themselves and it is easy to convince themselves that only they see reality and that the public is simply befuddled. These group are generally always wrong. If you suspect you are a member of such a group, try reading a wider spectrum of opinion. Its free.
When was the last time theCongress declare war? How many times has the US been engaged its military around the globe since then? You are either naive or not well-read.
6 people died during the annexation of Crimea back into Russia where it belongs. Poll after poll has confirmed that is the will of the people there.
You maniacs like to cite CRIMEA as though it was one of history's greatest crimes.
No, that would be things like the A Bombing of Japan, the millions killed in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, the deliberate attempted extermination of aboriginal peoples and on and on.
Hell, I lived so long in Ukraine that I actually know two(!) Crimeans who voted against becoming part of Russia.
Their Crimean neighbors have subsequently treated them with all the respect that an SS officer would have at the Jewish Antidefamation League.
For that matter, Pew Research, hardly a Russian cutout, found that support for joining Russia was quite high after the referendum. UN-sponsored polling indicated similar before the referendum and before the 2014 coup.
After the legitimate government in Kiev was overthrown in a coup, they didn't recognize the new post-Maidan regime. One could argue that Donetsk and Luhansk were the actual "loyalists", not "separatists".
The founder of Wiki now says he ‘doesn’t trust it.’ Are you the designated agitator for Glenn’s piece today? Because your smugness causes others to stretch things - & if that’s what you’re all about - why don’t you do us a favor and disclose it?
Fab condensed version of 2014 coup and bonus points for correct ID of Eric Ciaramella as a CIA operative. Folks without your grasp of history should have seen the big red flag the moment Congress praised him as a whistleblower because real truth tellers are silenced, smeared, prosecuted and jailed.
Sadly, Tulsi will never be allowed to be the future. I talk to so many people who still call her a stooge and a puppet on her Assad romance. There are just too many people in our society unable to use critical thinking or that actually read a full article.
I used to once think they were all right wing nuts that were easily manipulated... turns out... that problem doesn't distinguish with sides.
I agree and I think during Trump's four years in office the propaganda attack linking him to Russia and Putin based solely on heresay, no evidence required, dumbed down the American public. The left was also involved in that, and are as guilty as the mainstream media they use to attack for their propaganda and lies. I really like Tulsi Gabbard!
Not to mention that when he ran for the presidency in 2012 against Obama the turd was heard dismissing some 40-50 percent of the population as loafers and people he would not concern himself with, once in office. His heartfelt disdain for the poor went viral, and no more Mitt R. This is just an opportunity to prove he loves his country. What BS from a self-serving ass who wants to return to the spotlight.
Mitt Romney has no future in the republican party without kissing the war criminals ring. This is romney telegraphing the kiss while bending the knee to the biggest government ever: tyranny!
I suppose we could hold up their official 8x12 glossy and everyone rates their heinous-ness by holding up 1-10 cards. That would be an amusing in-the-cathartic-sense website to make.
Doesn't remind me of our build up to war with Iraq. We said Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and lied about al-qaeda's presence there. Back then there were people like Scott Ritter who refuted that, and he was in a position to do so, since he was an inspector general in that country until 1998. There were other's who refuted the Bush/Cheney claims of aluminum tubes and even allowed on news networks to denounce that war, as well as a left willing to stand up to the lies. The verbal back and forth between Putin and Biden which preceded the war in Ukraine was murky, and confusing, and almost seemed like a charade, leading many to believe it was never going to happen. I think the US purposely avoided being forthright and honest and did not inform the American people about Putin's demands and the consequences of ignoring them making the war in Ukraine a reality, so America looks innocent and Putin alone is the villain.
December 2021. Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded Thursday that the West “immediately” guarantee that NATO will not expand to include Ukraine and blamed the US for inflaming tensions in Eastern Europe and increasing the likelihood of war.
Putin fielded questions for about four hours at his annual year-end news conference, during which he reiterated his calls for NATO to halt its expansion to former Soviet republics, as well as his opposition to the West deploying missile systems near the Russian border.
When asked during the marathon session whether he could guarantee that he will not invade Ukraine, the Russian leader snapped: “It’s you who must give us guarantees and give them immediately, now, and not have idle talk about it for decades.”
Biden and his administration didn't give Putin an inch, nor did they inform the public about Russia's demands. The Iraq war didn't take people by surprise, but this one did, and it didn't provide the opportunity for any opposition being expressed either.
I never felt that way, even as a child. I always thought both would have to get crazy to blow up the world and if they did, well, it was okay if I died, because I didn't want to be around a whole bunch of crazy adults.
Both populations wanted friendship. Neither populations mattered in the least. Matt Taibbi said today Russia was a prototype of the extreme oligarchy the West would later become.
I thought we were an oligarchy, since the few control the many. Money really talks to our politicians in this country and they are really good listeners.
Fran...with your knowledge of Ukes/Russia, you go deep, but your "we are an oligarchy" comment above, leaves me in question. I am guessing that you refer to the US.
My thought is that the US does go in and out from controls on issues, but not in a sense of any full oligarchy...i'll give to a small percent.
Most of our (US) problems stem from groups such as the Media, which further agitates feckless groups as in religious/non, black /white, sex, race, age, sport...i just do not see "the few control the many"...hey, i have always felt My Freedom, perhaps more so than most, i do think that for freedom to work for Me, i should execute freedom. thanks
Putin was elected. He has more support than most Western leaders. How many Americans support the broken shell of a man that we are told is the leader of the free world?
So did ANY MSM cover Putin's talk? I don't subscribe to much MSM anymore, but do see headlines, et al. Did not see other than 30sec clip of Putin's speech, and no real analysis. And not much really in blogs/posts/substacks I read. I knew IN GENERAL Russia was very unhappy about potential NATO in Ukraine for several years. But were there any precipitating events that actually triggered the invasion NOW? I've not seen anything explaining why the invasion was NOW, vs say a year ago or a year from now. Just curious as to if there was a discrete 'trigger' that caused this, or more a case of 'might as well do it now, before things get any worse ".
Yeah, the NY Post, but I didn't need them to know this has been a demand for many years, or decades, but this time he sounded extremely adamant, and he wasn't going to wait a year, not months, but the demand was now!
There is plenty of blame to go around - but none of this excuses Putin for committing the ultimate war crime: aggressive war. It's all too clear whose troops are on which side of the border.
But by the same token, that doesn't excuse US officials (is Biden really in charge) for an idiotic provocation, almost as if they WANTED this war.
Putin made it clear, and his demands were rather simple, NATO is not to be at Russia's front door, and he didn't even demand we get those missiles out of Poland and Romania, the ones Obama installed in case Iran engages in some annihilistic ideas, but so arrogant are we, we never listen. So really who is at fault here?
Hideous; I favor self-determination. But technically not a provocation to Russia, since it's internal to Ukraine. Provoking, but not legal justification for an invasion.
I gather artillery attacks were ongoing even as the Russians massed troops on the border; that's stupid, at best, and possibly intentional sabotage - by the notorious Azov Battalion, perhaps? How much control did the Ukraine gov't have over those people?
And a general note: unfortunately, essentially NO state willingly allows its territory to shrink. Russia certainly didn't, in the case of Chechnya. Personally, I think the only good solution is to kiss separatists good-bye, as Canada offered to do with Quebec (and didn't have to). So Ukraine's attacks on the separatists were immoral, but absolutely normal - and legal.
Putin had another option: fortify the border, maintaining a threat, AND "invade" only the separatist-controlled areas, to stop the attacks. That's what Biden meant by a "minor" invasion - that was an offer. There would have been no resistance and no, or very little, bloodshed.
I think he was trying to repeat his military successes in Chechnya and Georgia - which he got away with. Instead, he got caught with his hands in the rat-trap, and Russia with him. To say nothing of the entire world, if this goes nuclear.
"They" have been wanting this war for many decades and they backed their ultimate enemy into a corner with the Maiden Square event organized by Nuland and her immediate superior, Biden as Step 1. Step 2 was the announcement that we would be putting missiles on Russia's back doorstep.
Step 3 was the infiltration of both the military by the Azov Battalion and the government by the Svoboda both successful at the highest levels. So in a few years the Ukraine officialdom became a Biden controlled government led by a pliable oligarch, Zelensky, in an anti-Putin government.
That suited Biden and his handlers to a T and as they hoped, Putin was either trapped into helplessness or he would feel obliged to do what he did. In either case, Biden's handlers were delighted. Putin, with a choice between castration and fighting back, chose to fight. However, Biden had set a trap that no one expected, a propaganda war of incredible dimensions. It veiled the fact that the new Azov military had been highly armed with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry while no one was looking.
Is that what Hunter Biden was doing for his $50K per month?
The sole difference I can detect is that the DOD doesn't appear to be on board with the idea. The State Department is out of control however, and the CIA is doing what the CIA always does, flirting with the edge of a broader war by funneling money to decrepit pieces of filth that we wouldn't acknowledge in any other situation.
It would be MOST instructive to get some video's of Iraq War justification spiel's side by side with current Ukraine justification spiel's to unambiguously show the similarities you mention.
I'll never forget the nonstop ghoulish fawning on the part of the MSM (CNN, specifically) as America carpetbombed a country that had neither attacked it, nor posed any direct threat. The Shock and Awe campaign was broadcast in real time, framed by shots of Old Glory waving in the wind and reverent gushings over the awesome military firepower on display. Meanwhile , down below, entire neighborhoods were obliterated. Pretty close to a textbook definition of terrorism.
A cousin on Facebook held Saddam Hussein responsible for all the lives lost in Iraq because he did not protect his own people. Master's degree and a husband who is a doctor and somehow that makes sense to her. People will engage in all manner of rationalizations to maintain America's "wholesome" persona. Children are indoctrinated to adopt a totally non-global perspective on the world, and in America due to her physical isolation it becomes easier. We can and do teach kids to have a global perspective when it comes to animals, but not people.
Jacques Ellul, in his masterwork, "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes", said that it is the educated who are most vulnerable to propaganda as most of what they know is second and third hand. I have a friend with a Master's too. And he believes everything CNN tells him. In his case, I think for him to believe otherwise, he would have have to discard his entire world view. He's met Glenn too, who he now says, "has lost his way". That's ridiculous, but there it is.
I've read Jacques Ellul carefully, which is, of course, how complex well written works must properly be treated. His references to "the educated" is not a linear "broad brush" or "one size fits all" academic extrapolation. His critique on this issue is that far too many students are not taught how to discern between correct and false information in the earlier stages of their education. The systematic deemphasis of learning the nuts and bolts of ethics and morals through the study of the Humanities and Cultural Anthropology, not to mention the dumbing down of general education Social Science requirements does not contribute to the development of a basic understanding, and thus appreciation, of advanced exploration and the subsequent acquisition of advanced knowledge. We need the antics of the clowns and questioning of the cynics to call to our attention the misbehavior of the fools and the corruption of the miscreants; but we must have knowledgeable journalists and jurists to inform their fellow citizens of the means and methods of repairing the ship of state, and charting a proper course.
Your point is, as usual, well taken. The thought I was trying to convey was that sometimes the hyperbolic emphasis which some cynics employ can serve to sort of jolt us out of the bad habit of letting these societal miscreants get away with their chicanery.
I could have, as you have clearly noticed, more coherently stated had it read "antics of the clowns and excessive questioning by the cynics". My idea was to acknowledge the useful wisdom to be found in the thoughts of our comedians and satirists; George Carlin and Richard Pryor come to mind.
I think your right since many don't recognize that the media in it's various forms are no more then propaganda outlets. I think those who are less educated are less inclined to follow the news and are not indoctrinated, which is what the news is all about. Just look at their diligent campaign of pushing the lies of the democrats in regard to Trump, and his ties to the Kremlin, and the most educated among us swallowed up that lie.
Fran...this has gone right over my head, for years, but natch "less educated are less inclined to follow the news" hence not "indoctrinated"...this is one point (at least for myself) that should be digested, since i had what you stated backward...re-read and bingo, i got a lot of answers.
Hence, some of those 140 IQers, once they get that defective news, that's their fertilizer and it sticks.thanks
I have a brother who has a Phd, and another who is dyslexic, intelligent, but has never been reliant on the printed word to understand politics, and is more inclined to use his intuitive self, especially during the Trump years. Greenwald's next article on the lies that the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation is something he never bought and neither did I, but the other brother bought it hook line and sinker since he has developed such a profound trust in papers like the NY Times who pushed the idea is was Russian disinformation. Now The Times finally admitted the laptop info was true, and no doubt something they always knew.
Your informed thoughts and suggestions are often an interesting element in these discussions, but this obsessive regressive injection of the Trump bashing into virtually every topic is nothing more than boring repetition. If you can not reference, in the text of the author you are commenting upon, the topic of your choosing, would not that be tantamount to propaganda in the guise of topical coherence❔🐍🧪
Sorry that bores you. I guess it didn't come to your attention that the democrats, and neocons, like Nuland, who was in Obama's state department and helped orchestrate the coup in Ukraine, and now in the Biden's state department, didn't conflate Trump hate, or as some like to call it, Trump derangement syndrome and the cold war hate of Russia? They certainly did. Isn't it now obvious the tensions between the US and Russia have now escalated to the point we might even have a nuclear war? In those Trump years it was made clear to Russia, to Putin, the west will never accept you. Read about the neocons and their world view and their agenda for Russia. Now they are 100% behind the democrats, but during the Bush/Cheney years the Republicans were the go to people they cultivated.
Yes. Thanks. I remember watching that live. It was just 'fireworks' at the time. The next couple days, when saw pics from the ground came in, the sobering reality left a very sick empty feeling, because, "We" did that. Based on lies. Esp since Saddam had been "our guy" when he waged war on Iran for us.
I’ll readily admit that I was agnostic about Iraq. I recognized the threat that the WOT represented to us, but I did not realize the importance of the Iraq War to the MIC at the time. I was still riding high on the relative peacefulness of the 90’s and couldn’t imagine that anyone would want a permanent warfare state.
Yes, even Chris Hedges as recently as a day or two ago confessed to being similarly lulled by the quasi-detente of the 90s. And even during the Bush years, there was a fairly large segment that just thought "Jesus, Dubya is pretty dumb, but he's under the thumb of a gang of out-of-control neocons, we just have to get them out of office and everything can get back to normal peaceful times."
But meanwhile, not only was the MIC always still on the move, Davos globalists were advancing their financial interests in non-military ways. Now we have both a robust military lobby (and budget) and a healthy transnational oligarchical elite!
Clinton spent his time in the Presidency trying "bury" the 'Sovs' in the mud. It was his policies that created the oligarchs. Just as it was his policies that actually reduced life expectancy there by over 10 year. Yeltsin was installed as President, then ridden like a donkey. Just like today with that tv actor who never stopped playing President. He just changed studios.
You are correct, the MIC and their minions in the power structures never stopped plotting the destruction of the "Sovs".
WWIII started the day that 'buhs' ripped up the foundational ABM treaty, which was immediately followed by ringing Russia with ABMs. It's impossible to explicate in a single comment just how (deliberately) destabilising that was.
There are people in the MIC who genuinely believe that they can launch a first strike on Russia and that they will not be able to "respond" as their retaliatory capability will have been destroyed. And if not "destroyed", then degraded to the point where a counterstrike would 'only' kill 20 to 30 million Americans. As Keith Payne said, "Victory is possible".
I remember watching that night too. It was on Broadcast TV also. The reporters were almost gleeful. But, I also remember the pics in magazines and on the CBS news with Cronkite, of N. Vietnam being carpet bombed roughly 30 yrs earlier. So, TV reporters seemed to have a love affair with military carnage even back then. And, after its over, the story can continue for awhile with the plight of the dead, refugees, etc. Makes for a long news cycle and great for ratings. But, not sure I'd call it terrorism. Terrorism seems smaller in scale, more discrete. That night was more like a National Flogging, so the entire country learned a lesson. And, I guess the lesson was, if ANY of you individually piss us off, ALL of you are going to pay, and pay dearly. And then we decided to move in and stay for many years to make sure they didn't forget the lesson.
I know, people tend to think of "terrorism" as ragtag, small-scale, local. So "state-sponsored terrorism" if you prefer. Here's one fairly typical definition:
"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or its citizens to further certain political or social objectives."
I remember it well, and I remember feeling just as helpless watching the train wreck. But unlike that train wreck, we really are in danger here at home if Putin decides he's in danger and begins hitting buttons. That's what's so disturbing about this time around.
The second I saw Tulsi annihilate Lil' Mitts after his pathetic attempt to check her, I put my popcorn in the microwave and waited for Glenn's article like a kid on Christmas Eve haha
Romney, 'The View' types, all of the swamp rats are the metaphorical Grima Wormtongues of the world, boisterous and arrogant until confronted face to face and stared down. I wonder how any of those loud-mouthed cowards, the toothless Chihuahuas who think they are Golden Retrievers, would react if someone stood a foot in front of them and denounced them as gutless cowards, corrupt sell-outs and spineless shills?
I saw him debate Dersh and General Hayden in Toronto. Fish guts everywhere!!! After the debate at the reception Glenn refused to shake Hayden's blood soaked paw.
I'd love that as well...however Romney would play the Russia card, much like Kinzinger did with Carlson and Hillary did with Gabbard. The swamp rats are gutless cowards and witless worms.
Hillary called her a Russian asset. Hillary was pissed at Tulsi for telling the truth. Hilldawg sold (approved as SoS) our uranium to Russia in return for speaking engagements for her rapist husband. Hillary puts rhe ASS in Russian asset.
Now it appears the Clintons want to resurrect the Clinton Foundation (or whatever) as a ruse to provide charitable contributions to Ukraine. Guess they see another opportunity to grift a nation (remember Haiti?) or get their hands on some of that 13 billion that's being sent over (to who or what?). Mittens voted for that. Republicans better be careful, we may not give them that expected majority in Nov. No war!
I think half of it was Hillary was pissed at seeing a woman with no connection to her having a legitimate chance at winning the DNC nomination just four years after she, Hillary had lost the general election. Never underestimate the spite that narcissistic psychopaths hold.
She also signed for the war on Iraq, after it was clear that they had no WMD. She is also literally in love with the US military. I could go on about torture and her guru, et al, too, but that's a whole other topic.
Well Glenn, you are a right-wing fanatical nutjob aren't you? Why can't everybody be committing treason left and right? This follows up excellently with Matt's article about the new whataboutism and how we are truly living through 1984 in the here and now!
Clown world is as clown world does. That is our new world.
Taibbi and Greenwald make such a great one-two punch. My two faves nowadays.
Glenn's pellucid prose and sedulous, hard news style complement Matt's wry, pop-culture punctuated, feature-style writing so well, too. Love these guys!
Bari Weiss called Gabbard an Assad "toady" on Rogan's show. Then she couldn't even define the word. She is definitely not in the same league as Taibbi and Greenwald.
I suspect Ms. Weiss would amend that assignation today. But I think both would agree that Ukraine and Syria have one big foreign elephant/bear in common, and causing common commotion (read: warmongering).
Yeah, Weiss's publishing continues to be 100% support for Ukraine, no mention the origins of the conflict, nothing other than swamp rat talking points. Weiss may be right 80% of the time but she'd dead wrong here.
The complete lack of any context for what happened in Ukraine, very much reminds much of the reaction post 911. "Why do they hate us??"
Lack of context or any real understanding of history, is why people ask a similarly clueless question today. "Why would Putin invade Ukraine?"
In both cases the utter lack of any understanding is why the 'answers' to those questions were, and are so bad.
"Because they hate our freedoms"
And today, "Because Putin is evil and crazy"
I am also reminded of Glenn's visit to Ottawa the day after our 'terror' attack where he tweeted that, "Canada, at war in the middle east for 13 years, is shocked that they got attacked."
Good Canadians were completely outraged at him for saying that, but hey, I learned I think by grade two that, "actions have consequences". Pull a doggies tail hard enough and long enough and any dog will bite you. Bad dog?
I ran up to the Hill within minutes of the attack to bear witness. What a day that was!
I can understand that. Bari's appearance on Pennywise Stelter's show where she gave him a verbal Ultra Combo worthy of Killer Instinct when he condescendingly asked "Who's [sic] the people stopping the conversation?" went a long way to finally fading the stain of the infamous Rogan "Toady Incident" from my memory. She has been doing some good work. I appreciate that she stands up for free speech and lends her platform to numerous other heterogenous thinkers.
I also like Andrew Sullivan. I don't share as many views with him as I do Glenn and Matt, but he is an intelligent, erudite writer, and I appreciate his willingness to tackle challenging topics and work through them publicly, often in realtime.
I have different politics than all three, but we absolutely agree on the role and importance of the first amendment, and nothing is at greater risk right now than our right to free speech.
People still tell me, "it's a private company, they can do what they want"
They don't know or care that the censorship is a partnership between government and private companies.
That aside, social media is the new commons, and no one should control the commons. I maintain that Twitter, FB, others, are "common carriers" like the phone company.
Even emails are being censored now. Google goes into drive and deletes files.
As soon as a company cuts deals with the government, it ceases to be private. People who say that line are either shills or have no clue either that the company is connected, or what private actually means.
I have been off corporate "news" for some time. When I am exposed to it, it is a shock to my system. Great journalism out there for those of us that seek it out. Unfortunately, many Americans are too busy or uninterested and they fall for the malarkey.
I feel ya. I was visiting family the other day and they had a network news program on in the background. I was shocked how many blatant lies the program was spewing.
At one point, I was basically live "fact checking" them and telling my family how they can check the receipts on all this.
... yes, I am a barrel of monkeys at reunions and bar mitzvahs haha
Disagree on Andrew Sullivan, though sorry to do so because I used to like him too. But I find he will only take on challenging topics when there is little cost to doing so, and then only as an intellectual exercise, never to effect change. He won't take an unpopular stand without extreme, almost nonsensical hedging to offset the damage (Trump has a point on this or that, but is a uniquely evil authoritarian who must be stopped at all costs, etc.).
While I doubt he would be so bold as to reprise his Iraq War zealotry (accusing dissenters of being a "fifth column"), you certainly will not hear the slightest whisper of anti-war sentiment out of him on Ukraine until this is long over (God willing) and such talk is back to being edgy-but-acceptable among intellectuals.
I think the cancellation which brought him to Substack was likely more the result of miscalculation than principle.
All three took big risks by standing up for their beliefs. They didn't give a shit about getting canceled and took strong stands in favor of, what I believe, is the most important issue in our society today. I mean seriously, Greenwald resigned from the company he founded?! Weiss could have just coasted and kept a prestigious position with the Iconic liberal newspaper/media empire. Matt and Glenn both get accused of being conservatives just because they do interviews outside of CNN and MSNBC?
As I said earlier, I doubt we'd vote the same way on many ballot issues, but they're fighting for our country in an unusually noble way which most 'journalists' don't have the integrity, or wisdom to do.
I'm a paid subscriber for both and read them both consistently. Even when I disagree with Bari, she doesn't piss me off so that I dump the paid subscription (like I did with Matt Yglasias and the Intercept).
Well, I'm a bit shaken up that my fellow libertarians and Classical Liberals (including GG, in the first ever instance of disagreement) don't seem to share my opinion that Canadian Fascism (not to mention the dying U.S. police State) is nothing compared to the Russian sort.
But I guess I quibble. In any case, you (and a few other otherwise-like-minded) are the reward for my part-time passing perusal of punctual posters.
Here's the difference. Russia: you don't have free speech so don't get caught saying something I don't approve of or I will punish you. West: You absolutely have free speech but don't say something I don't approve of or I will punish you.
I am banned from Twitter. If I try to comment at CBC, in the same manner as I do here, about 3)% of my comments are "deactivated". Before I post there, my comments are held for "premoderation" Tell a CBC'er that that might be a problem and they call you a trumper or a russian bot.
CBC officially hates Assange now too, and work to destroy him.
The people's responses to what is going on in Ukraine not only results from a propaganda oriented media on all levels, but also that most Americans are really not informed about our recent history. Talk to them about our extending NATO as the major factor in what is happening now, and if you don't get a blank stare you get an argument based on ignorance. Years ago people were more informed, but back then the media saw it as an obligation to actually inform the public, and there were people who could rightly call themselves journalists instead of self serving talking heads hired by big tech.
People do not realize that this was Russia's red line for over 30 years. The swamp rats didn't think Russia would commit force to ensure that red line wasn't crossed. They were wrong on both counts, and combined with Afghanistan, in a non-government job, one could say "three strikes and you're out."
Putin may be a bastard, but his actions are logical. Blinken and the rest of the swamp rats refused to negotiate on Ukraine. What was Putin supposed to do as he needs the ice for his tanks to maneuver on before the spring thaw. Wait another year while Ukraine is reinforced with tanks, jets, missiles and troops? Not only was his hand forced, but the utter stupidity of the swamp rats pushed him into the arms of the CCP. This is the worst possible outcome because we have the least impressive and dimmest as leaders.
Edit: I apologize to anyone who has been called dim, as my above comment was an insult to you.
Everything the democrats did, from trying to oust an elected president based on lies and he was no more then Putin's puppet, set the ground and maybe deliberately for this to happen. Doesn't remind me of our build up to war with Iraq. We said Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and lied about al-qaeda's presence there. Back then there were people like Scott Ritter who refuted that, and he was in a position to do so, since he was an inspector general in that country until 1998. There were other's who refuted Bush/Cheney claims of aluminum tubes and even allowed on news networks to denounce that war, as well as a left willing to stand up to the lies. The back and forth between Putin preceding the war in Ukraine as presented by the Biden administration was murky, and confusing, and almost seemed like a charade, leading many to believe it was never going to happen. I don't think the US was ever clear about Putin and his demands, and why we now have a war in Ukraine.
December 2021. Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded Thursday that the West “immediately” guarantee that NATO will not expand to include Ukraine and blamed the US for inflaming tensions in Eastern Europe and increasing the likelihood of war.
Putin fielded questions for about four hours at his annual year-end news conference, during which he reiterated his calls for NATO to halt its expansion to former Soviet republics, as well as his opposition to the West deploying missile systems near the Russian border.
When asked during the marathon session whether he could guarantee that he will not invade Ukraine, the Russian leader snapped: “It’s you who must give us guarantees and give them immediately, now, and not have idle talk about it for decades.”
Biden and his administration no doubt didn't give Putin an inch, nor did they inform the pubic about Russia's demands, but simply said they were lying about it being normal to amass troops along Ukraine's eastern border. The Iraq war didn't take people by surprise, but this one did, and it didn't provide the opportunity for any opposition being expressed either. America good, Russia bad.
You mis-understand, M. Icon. I'm only referring to the threat of further "empiring" by today's Fascist empire, not it's current "Special Military Operation."
Putin will take as much of Ukraine (ne: Russia, after all) as he wants and Russians (especially Generals) let him.
I spent a year working in an office with 2 Russians, a Ukrainian, an Estonian and a Pole. I feel I have a unique perspective here. I dare not even begin to speak my thoughts openly. All of these people were in the US for less than 10 years for various reasons. The Ukrainians thoughts on things were pretty remarkable to me, and let me know most of what we are being fed is something we should all puke back up.
I would never compare Putin to Hitler, unless you're excusing the millions of Jews, Poles, and others killed in his concentration camps, or those who died fighting a war, and who number in the many millions, and took the lives of 25 million Russians. Perhaps Timothy you are Insensitive.
M. Fran, I promise you, I don't want to be insensitive, and I don't mean to be insensitive, not to any individual.
Just as it is true that no human being should have had to die from Covid-19, no human being should have ever had to die in war, and no human being should ever have been a slave to another.
But my strong opinion remains that Putin IS today's equivalent of Adolph Hitler, and I don't even mean to be insensitive to him!
But HE bombed hospitals and neighborhoods. If YOU had lost a child to the Russian Special Military Operation....
Also, on a lighter note, I don't follow the logic of your first sentence. Why are you even asking me to "excuse" the millions of Jews, Poles, and others, or why, in condemning Mr. Putin, I am "excusing" Hitler?
I read the hospital was evacuated before the strike, and the reason it was hit is they had installed ground guns that were firing. In Mariupol the Ukranian military, nazi's. are preventing anyone from leaving, so they are keeping the people in harms way. If you are at all familiar with our military exploits through decades of war, and interventions where we have killed millions even before our middle eastern wars do you also reference us as Hitleresk? War is not something I believe in and I have always been active in the anti-war movement. However I am not so naive as to vilify Russia, for example, and not see my own country's hand in this war. This war never had to have happened if the US, starting with Clinton, had not begun a journey of bringing more and more countries into NATO, and helped orchestrate a coup that ousted an elected pro-Russian president. Ukraine militarized it's eastern border under it's new regime where neo-nazis are a significant part of it's military and where some 14, 000 were killed in the Donbass over a period of seven years. To answer your last statement, well, in no way can Putin be compared to Hitler. If you can't see that one can only assume you are incapable of evaluating the carnage he caused, or are excusing it.
Yeah, I hear you about being skeptical about the war stories one hears these days. And we seem to be in agreement about a good many things, so I offer to stop using the childish monicker "PutinHitler," or otherwise snidely refering to similarities in these two particular "human" beings, if you will forgive me for offending you.
I'm pretty sure there are very few people in the world that actually know what Putin is thinking. I believe most of his own people are baffled at the thought of what's going on right now. I would assume most of his most staunch supporters are a bit upset at their loss of status because of this invasion.
It's likely as you say, an excuse, but one we didn't have to offer up to him on a platter after decades of very smart people telling us all this would be the result.
Agreed. (And NATO should have at least been replaced when its war (the Cold War) was successfully concluded.)
However, The much bigger issue today, this moment, is the new iron curtain being erected by Putin. The West's response to the invasion of a Western-oriented nation is completely appropriate: Russia must be made a pariah, lest Putin be, in any way, rewarded for his international belligerence.
NATO, per se, and its needle in Putin's side, is pure sideshow now. Putin will get his half of Ukraine, and he (HE, NOT us) will have resurrected a moribund NATO, which will include rump Ukraine, and possibly Finland and Sweden, because it appears that only NATO national boundaries will be respected by this latest Russian Fascist.
There is still a way to go about things involving treaties and creating a split between either Putin and the CCP or Putin and the other Russian oligarchs.
I'd suggest my initial four-for-four treaty I proposed before....save with an added clause of forcing Russia to recognize Taiwan as a 'sovereign state' which it 'would commit to defending if attacked.' Accepting such a treaty would split the alliance with the CCP, turning it down would earn the wrath of the Russian oligarchs.
When the Soviet Union collapsed and the disarmament talks occurred, it was written into the agreement that Ukraine would never be in NATO.
Then Petroshenko got all butthurt and tried to get Ukraine into NATO on Biden/Obama's watch. You saw how that turned out when Putin annexed Crimea.
Now here we are again and Ukraine is pushing for NATO acceptance and boom NATO doesnt have their back and boom Putin again has invaded Ukraine.
Now you see this article here, where Glenn is pointing out how Tulsi Gabbard is like "Wait you had bio weapons in Ukraine and didnt protect them when you knew war was about to happen" and getting called a traitor.
ITS ALL BULLSHIT
Its all cover for the Iranian nuclear deal. The same shit Obama did. The same shit Trump took us out of. The same country whose enemies Bush Jr. destroyed.
Now the same Bush neocons and the same Obama/Biden Iran pals are willing to do ANYTHING to let Iran get nukes, and so Putin is abusing that status.
WAKE THE FUCK UP EVERYONE ITS ALL ABOUT IRANIAN NUKES HERE
Romney is a Republican John Kerry. Both are repulsive snakes, and not even of the in the grass variety. Lacking anything remotely resembling character, they reliably act in pure self-interest.
True. But I kinda push back on giving in to TOO much cynicism. I still feel we use the Republicans to hammer the Democrats, then not let the Republican strain of Statism/Police-of-the-World shoot us in the foot, uh...so to speak. If the Republicans start warmongering, we hammer them with the Democrats.
What else are we going to do? Should we break up like the Soviet Union did?
I prefer the words of an honorable person who has, to my knowledge, always told the truth as she sees it, to the words of an admitted liar who says what people want to hear in order to garner votes.
I do not agree with many, if not most of Tulsi Gabbard’s political views but I believe her to be an honorable person. I would vote for her for political office.
Mitt Romney has shown himself to be devoid of honor.
I donated to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign in August 2019 when the Democratic Party bosses were opposing her inclusion in debates, even though I am a Republican. By the way, since then I have received 50+ emails a day (on an address used only for political things) from the Democratic Party organizations. That is more than 40,000 so far.
The misappropriation of the word “treason” with the intent to attack, defame, and marginalize those with whom you disagree is dangerous for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is diluting its purpose and utility in describing a person’s behavior. Much like constantly and inappropriately using “racism”, “white supremacy”, and “[fill in the blank]-phobia”, it escalates things to the point where there is nowhere to go, attenuates the meaningfulness of the terms, and leaves us with precious little to describe and characterize actual malicious and malignant behaviors.
And it’s intellectually lazy. Those levying this type of spurious accusations do so to avoid engaging the argument, either because they can’t (due to a dearth of knowledge and intellectual capacity) or because it is simply expedient not to (i.e., the insult is the entirety of the point).
I find this case, though, morally objectionable. Unless these grandstanding assclowns have taken the oath, put on the uniform, and stood a watch, they can fuck all the way off.
I agree with Glenn that being a service member does not put you beyond reproach. In fact, I think it necessarily raises expectations regarding a person’s conduct. That said, those leveling an accusation like this against a former or current service member better come armed with receipts.
Absent those receipts, people like Senator Romney should simply be grateful to those protecting their First Amendment rights (potentially with their lives), opt to exercise those rights more judiciously and responsibly, and afford those they would attack the courtesy of expressing themselves without baseless, classless, mindless, sanctimonious, and chickenshit accusations. They don’t deserve them, people like Senator Romney shouldn’t make them, and we don’t want to hear them, particularly from people like Senator Romney.
Ben Shapiro and Bill Maher recently discussed this very thing, and were largely in agreement: The left needs to knock off the intellectually lazy invective. I recommend the discussion to all.
The intent may not be merely to dilute, but to invert its meaning. "Traitor" is selected for those who risk their lives and livelihoods for their country. War is peace etc. See Taibbi's Orwell piece https://taibbi.substack.com/p/orwell-was-right.
"If there is any one overarching, defining hallmark of a tyrannical culture, it is the refusal to tolerate any dissent from or questioning of official government policy, and to criminalize such dissent by equating it with treason. Indeed, many of the same Americans who are doing exactly this love to flamboyantly express horror as Russia does the same against its own war opponents.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find any despot in history who does not weaponize accusations of “treason" against dissidents as a central instrument for control. That U.S. discourse has now descended completely to that level is barely debatable. Just look at the last forty-eight hours of treason accusations against Gabbard, to say nothing of the last six years of liberal anti-Trump mania, to see how acceptable and reflexive such behavior has become."
Hermann Goering had some practical life experience in such matters, and this is what he said when he was waiting to be executed after Nuremberg:
"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
'Why, of course, the people don't want war,' Goering shrugged. 'Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.'
'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.'
'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"
FOUR draft deferments were sought and granted to this coward POS. How he can call anyone treasonous is one for the books. Anyone who votes for this slug needs to have their head examined. One of the lowest slime bags in public life.
I mean, it's a little hard to admit that I voted for this turd Romney, but i've since been disabused of the notion that he is harmless. Another agent of the uniparty - the war party.
A lot of curious silence about this from the people who told us for years that Trump will arrest journalists because he's a fascist and that's what fascists do.
Yeah, TDS is a form of hypocrisy, no doubt. Whatever you think of his politics (or his "narcissism"), the State (the powers-that-be that today reside primarily in the Democrat Party and its lackeys like Mitt Romney) railroaded DJT like never done to an individual before in history, and those who didn't like him cheered it on. Their chickens are coming home to roost.
With each passing day -- and accompanying disaster -- under this criminally incompetent administration, Trump's legacy is looking better and better. How many wars did he get us into again? How many lands did Putin invade? How was inflation and the price of energy? Which despots did we go begging hat in hand to sell us oil we once provided for ourselves? How many fentanyl-packing illegals, rapists, and child traffickers strutted freely across our southern border?
Can America withstand another three years of this "leadership"?
Gabbard is a very competent person of high integrity and not a swamp thing like most politicians. She is a prime candidate to be the first woman president of the US, and she would make a great one. As a result, she is also a prime target for smear by the left. The left could never win an election without smear tactics and cheating, so it has begun with Gabbard.
I agree with just about everything Tulsi has to say on foreign policy for this country. Her hanging around in the public eye can only lead one to assume she’s going to run for some political office. For me, she’s going to have to explain why she supported Bernie sanders in 2016. Add to that why she is a member of the World Economic Forum young and upcoming stars. Finally, how she could have supported our demented, corrupt president in the 2020 election are all troubling. No one, including Tucker ever holds her to account about all this. These are all disqualifying positions for me.
Integrity or not, Gabbard's political views and positions are solidly in the Progressive camp, and that's why she will never get my vote. However, Romney is a Swamp creature deluxe and should be kept far away from any position in which he can have even the slightest effect on public policy. His attack on Gabbard is deranged--and thankfully has been hard to miss, even by some in the MSM. He just hurt himself badly.
I love this indent, and its well-written comments, but...
Tulsi Gabbard should be the next REPUBLICAN candidate for POTUS.
With her willingness to compromise on her (for lack of a better word, but I think you know what I mean...) socialism at home, coupled with her seemingly Trump-like ability to remain un-captured by today's greatest evil, the stealth Western police/surveillance State as represented by the Uni-Party, a phrase I hate but peeps here seem to recognize sympathetically.
Can you give me a citation where Tulsi either explains why she was a Bernie supporter or renounces the socialist? She “remains un captured by today’s greatest evil…” well can you show me where she explains or renounces the worst evil we face, the globalists at the World Economic Forum? She’s a Trojan horse to me. Many are seduced by her reasonable anti war policies.
I cannot, and I am not going to search for it at this point. For all I know, Gabbard still "supports" Bernie Sanders, and even his socialism. I think asking her about her views on the World Economic Forum is an excellent question for her to answer for the wider public during the primaries (I doubt she WILL run for the Republican nomination; I just have that wish).
Finally, you may be right, and I have been seduced, but I still hold out hope that she, and ANY similar Democrat, might remain un-captured, and therefore of high value to we anti-Statists.
She appears to be an anti-statist but appearances can be deceiving. This country is at the end of its rope with bad or deceptive politicians. She seems too good to be true because no one has asked her to answer the tough questions and I suspect (sorry for being so cynical but I’m 72) there’s a reason for that too. It will kill this country if we elect a Trojan horse who turns out to be a globalist with a dash of socialist.
I cannot, nor would not, argue against your well-written worry here. Plus, your cynicism, not to mention your "years of experience," are reasons to listen to you, imo.
I do still disagree with your last statement. I think the country that could survive a DJT is stronger than you think.
The DNC will never embrace or advocate for her after she shamed them in 2016 for cheating, and stepped down.
IF, and only if, she runs as an independent, would she ever win the WH, making history not only as the first female president, but the first one from a 3rd party, revolutionizing the U.S. political landscape forever.
Tulsi Gabbard should consider it a badge of honor that a draft-dodging, deep-state puppet like Romney would call her a traitor -- it only shows she is over the target. Romney is a pathetic representation of the past and Gabbard is the future.
Romney has a lot to hide: Romney has business in Ukraine, just like Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and he was complicit in the 2020 Election Fraud, with GA Gov. Kemp, Raffensperger, AZ Gov. Ducey, and many other RINO's.
By the way: it was us (The USA) who invaded Ukraine: in 2014, with a Coup d'Etat. Guess who was involved in that Coup? Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Victoria Nuland, John Brennan and... John McCain - article here: https://gregrubini.substack.com/p/massacre-ukraine-2014 - Since RINO McCain was involved, certainly also this other RINO, Romney was in it, too: this is why that dog barks at Tulsi Gabbard. Dem's + RINO's = UniParty (all tools of the CIA)
Misdirection is a highly effective tool, especially when used against a 280-character attention span, easily triggered populace. Or as Matt Taibbi said in his brilliant piece last Sunday: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/orwell-was-right?s=r
"The ideal citizen of Orwell’s Oceania bubbled with rage a mile wide and a millimeter deep and could forget in an instant passions that may have consumed him or her for years."
Treason is the new unvaccinated.
I like that, "Treason is the new unvaccinated." The impulse for both is the compulsion to demonize those who question the official government/corporate line.
Treason is just the newest buzzword. Like racist, islamaphobic, transphobic, xenophobic, insensitive...the list goes on.
They just swapped treason in for racism.
The DNC cant do shit but point at the other team and blame because if they point at themselves you will see 0 actual results in 60+ years of total control.
Look at Baltimore, St. Louis and New Orleans in terms of crime.
I have a 75 year old friend, a lifelong resident of Baltimore, where after fifty years of Democratic control the city has sunk into a dystopian crime sewer. Yet he proudly proclaims that "I'd vote for Mickey Mouse before I'd vote for a Republican for mayor." It's like talking to a Scientologist.
Most epithets of this nature boil down to, "You are not of the body!" - McCoy
https://youtu.be/m48xii7ndcg
Or, "You're a cootie!". That reflects the level of maturity that's involved.
“You’ve got Puties!”
I’ve used this perfect reference multiple times. It elicits either a spit-take from the old or a blank stare from the generations who would benefit the most.
"Blank stares" are trendy among certain demographics these days! Thanks!
"You do know that Russia, is not the Soviet Union and that they are now a capitalist country right?" {blank stare}
Another great comment. Going to steal the "....the new unvax..."
We all owe an eternal debt to David Frum et al. for instilling this binary team logic on us back during the War on Terror. But you can draw a fairly straight line from there through the NeverTrumpers, Coronatards, and now the current-day version: "You either support ramping up a disastrous military response in Ukraine, or you're a Putin apologist. And therefore treasonous."
Worse, "You must accept that there was no fault or mis-steps in our actions, policies, diplomacy in the years and months leading to this war, so the only possible blame falls solely on Putin. And even if you believe that Putin is a monster who has unleashed indefensible war actions, you must also accept that there are no gray areas where we could do anything, then or now, other than exactly what we're doing for no less cause than saving democracy and freedom - there is no other path than ours. And, as always, it's Trump's fault. - Anything other than a full throated war cry is treason"
Agreed. My use of "et al" above was specifically a reference to Atlantic neocon Anne Applebaum, who Tweetblamed "Mearsheimer et al" for __providing the Russians with a convenient pretext to invade__! As if everything Mearsheimer (who, after all, is a non-progressive realpolitik strategist) said DIDN'T HAPPEN.
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
(After getting dragged for her tweet, Applebaum later said she was only "half-joking." Weaselly!)
Anne blocked me on Twitter. Good.
Speaking of "treason", Frum left his own country to promote war. Wars of aggression were not a Canadian value.
"Were", they are now. The annexation is almost complete.
We have become spectators in the Roman Coliseum watching gladiators fight to the death. Americans are distant from the war and watch it at home but the emotional pitches of commenters makes it seem like we are involved. The sanction war is an overlay of a terrible ground war but its only Ukrainians and Russians dying. The sanctions are the new drones - a way to fight without spilling a drop of blood.
Yes -- drones, sanctions, censorship: the preferred tools of the virtuals.
Aaron Maté said something to the effect of “the truth has a mask mandate. “
Glenn made the point recently that the "Classic Russian technique" of whataboutism is as old as man.
The same is true of doublethink, which is a human trait, aeons old. Nothing new about it. I really like Matt, but that was weak.
@ Bill Owen ❔
"I really like Matt, but that was weak."
The comment you replied to was:
"Aaron Maté said something to the effect of “the truth has a mask mandate. “"
The conversational use of "whataboutism and/or doublethink has indeed been exercised when desperate uninformed rhetoric is proffered in hopes of not being recognized as covert falsity.
See:
Matt Taibbi: Orwell Was Right - scheerpost.comhttps://scheerpost.com › 2022/03/13 › matt-taibbi-orwel...
3 days ago — We even have our own borrowed Newspeak word for the offense: Whataboutism. The offender supposedly does a bait-and-switch,
As Usual,
EA☠
Thanks yes, I read the article. Doublethink is not new, nor is it on the rise. We all do it to some degree or other too.
Yeah Glenn linked the calls where they got caught on a hot mic deciding who was going to be in charge in Ukraine.
This is the behavior that is unacceptable here and everywhere, and is the behavior both Americans and foreigners hate about our leaders.
THIS SHIT HAS TO FUCKING STOP. SOMEONE HAS TO BE ABLE TO HOLD THESE ELITE FUCKS ACCOUNTABLE.
FFS
Don't overstep. The US did not invade the Ukraine and to say we did is laughable. You can read some background here ...https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you-need-to-know. Putin was funding separatist rebels. The article you cite presents no evidence of anything, just one guy's overheated conspiracy theory. For more detail go here...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War. Putin invaded portions of the Ukraine in 2014 and then invaded the Crimea which was part of the Ukraine.
Just watched Oliver Stone's "Ukraine on Fire". Ukraine is evenly split between those who want closer ties with Russia (the Eastern half, and the Crimea) and those who are EU-centric (the Western half, who, inconveniently, are heavily supported by large, powerful real-life Nazi factions,, including in their military).
It's a clusterfuck, and unfortunately 99.9% of Americans will never know the first thing about Ukraine's history, including the U.S. backed "revolution", which Nuland is caught on tape helping to orchestrate. Don't think we should get involved. Does that make me a traitor too?
You are only a traitor because you are rational..lol
Priceless; Kudos!
If it means Im a traitor to the schemes of the corrupt I wear that badge proudly.
None of that word salad changes the fact that the US did not invade the Ukraine. Putin has said on the open airwaves that he thinks Ukraine is "part of Russia". Hitler thought Austria was "part of Germany". Xi thinks Taiwan is "part of Communist China". And by all accounts I've seen, the Ukraine is not evenly split. The Ukrainians I know remember what happened the last time Russia was in control. The popular talking point about "the Ukraine is full of Nazi's" is straight from Putin's playbook. None of this matters to those who think that the US is the cause of all the world's problems and there are many of those here.
Hey there Nosh, what about what the CIA did on August 19, 1953 with their MI6 buddies?
The US NEVER gets to play "dont meddle in other countries card". Period. End of fucking story.
Hey iconoclast, what did Stalin’s guys do in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria? I suppose those were all peaceful and democratic takeovers. What about meddling in other countries there?
I have an embarrassing admission. I went to, let’s say, a pretty good college decades ago with someone I now believe was a family member. Not one of us expensively educated buffoons even recognized his surname. Memory holes have always been America’s finest product.
Heil Azov Batallion. And we did help to overthrow a legally-elected government there, which makes us much smarter than that idiot Putin. Tanks are so 20th century.
"None of this matters to those who think that the US is the cause of all the world's problems and there are many of those here."
You're the world's policeman. The leader of the free world and all that other bullshit that they burned into you since birth. So yeah, wear it pal. Wear it.
You broke it, you own it.
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009 *
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
Holy shit the final Q made me snort out my coffee lol.
You're brainwashed on US exceptionalism. The TV/film based history that you fervently believe in never happened.
You’re so clearly a paid troll the CIA deserves a refund.
Ukrainian TV few days ago, channel is apparently owned by wife of Lvov's Mayor: https://www.bitchute.com/video/fS33KkLCueaM/
Spot on truth right here by M. Nosh Itsherlock.
The Ukraine is indeed 'full of Nazis'.
Saying otherwise can only be the product of two things.
1. you don't know any better
2. you are lying
And stop saying "straight from Putin's playbook", that's just a propaganda term. The only question about any claim ever, is, "is it true, or false?"
Not, "Did that come from Putin's playbook?"
It is true however, that using that term, mindlessly, pointlessly, as a mere slur, is "straight from the CIA's playbook" .
"Straight from Putin's playbook" is the logical equivalent of Josef Goebbels dismissing something as a "Jew argument".
I don’t know if “full of Nazis” works for me tbh. All right wing parties poll in very low numbers in Ukraine. At the same time Azov and even weirder groups have been integrated with the military which now tweets out the Schwarzesonne like it’s nbd. I’ve said elsewhere I picture the Nazis in Ukraine sort of like the mafia is, or was, in Sicily. Not necessarily popular but able to project lots of power and commit a lot of crime through the use of discipline and violence.
That is why the Russian armed forces are so bogged down in the east and south. The locals keep coming out to thank the tank drivers and offer them tea. Were it not for the gratitude of the locals slowing them down the whole east bank of the Dnieper would have been liberated. Everyone who believes this, raise your hand, the short bus has arrived to drive you back home. As always, you guys area riot. Never have 15 people brought so many smiles to the world. You are not a traitor, John. Your admission that an OliverStone video is your main source of information on Ukraine says enough.
With that said, there is definitely a lot of support for Russia in the East. I have actual coworkers from that region who confirmed this.
Oh my, you actually have coworkers from there. Great sample size. So far, 2.4 Million Ukrainians have fled Ukraine, these are mostly Eastern Ukrainians. Of these refugees, about 57,000 chose to go to Russia. Do I doubt there are pro-Putinites in Ukraine? No. You exaggerate. This is the most widely covered war in history. There is no excuse not to learn from it.
You don't know what's going on in Ukraine. There's a war going on and EVERYONE is lying.
Get real killer.
Crawl back in your hole. The entire world sees what is going on. They agree. That you don’t see reflects poorly on you. You stand with Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea.
Ukraine's elections since independence look like a game of musical chairs. An Eastern leaner wins in one election, a Western leader wins the next.
Ok, Meyer. How do they compare to the elections in Belarus? Russia? No musical chairs there. No pantomimes to amuse you. Compared to its eastern and northern neighbors, the Ukraine had a vibrant and open democratic system. Since the 2014 Maidan revolution, the power of the oligarchs was diminished and the government exhibited a degree of transparency unmatched in any former Soviet Republic with the exception of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. You re a bullshitter. Don't waste my time with your bullshit.
I was referring to the comment another reader made about Ukraine being split 'evenly' between East and West learners, nothing else. I wasn't saying they were undemocratic.
Switzerland just dropped its neutrality to impose sanctions on Russia. The Ukraine has been eyed by foreign powers since the Mongol invasion. Today, neutrality would not matter in the face of Russia’s unwillingness to recognize Ukrainians as a nation and the Ukraine as a sovereign country. Russia would still seek dominance and control over a neutral Ukraine. Aggressors can be like that.
We did not invade Ukraine. We sponsored a coup.
America, where we eat our own bullshit because our media and leaders make so much.
Finster, we stole a revolution and installed a pliant regime. By the time the US and the EU acted, the Yanukovych regime was already toast.
Without bothering to rehash your old and debunked arguments, that is hardly a better look.
Let's not let semantics obscure truth here. If, by your definition, "invade" implies overt military action, then yes ok, the US did not "invade" the Ukraine. But our CIA (directed by the people Greg Rubini mentions) did engage in clandestine activity to facilitate the overthrow of the Ukraine's *democratically* elected president, Victor Yanukovych. Our CIA has done this many times before -- most notably when we overthrew Mosaddeq in Iran (replacing him with the brutal, tyrannical Shah we propped up for decades). Chalmers Johnson, long time US foreign policy advisor, talks about all this here:
https://www.alternativeradio.org/products/johc001/
As for "funding separatist rebels": We funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to deliberately attack Russians. We GAVE them Stinger Missiles!! With that context, it's hard to see how you can fault Putin a whole lot. At least the separatists he funded were on his critical border, and the people there wanted to get out of the Ukraine that our CIA had created.
A much more thorough presentation of the Ukraine situation can be found in John Mearsheimer's 2015 (!!!) University of Chicago lecture here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Note that Mearsheimer is a distinguished US born, US foreign policy expert, and long time political conservative. TRUE conservative, not a neo-con.
Related reading: America's long history of heavy election interference abroad, including by funding Yeltsin's theft of the 1996 Russian presidential election: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-us-has-a-long-history-of-election-meddling/565538/
Ironically appearing in the pages of the Atlantic, home to some of the US's most widely read neocons
You proof, alternative radio and a youtube video? The notion that Nuland orchestrated a coup in Ukraine is so one dimensional, based on no understanding of the Euromaidan revolution and the forces that it unleashed, that it is laughable. Your defense of Yanukovych as a democratically elected president is even. more laughable. That several thousand people in the US, like you, believe the CIA orchestrated Maidan is not surprising. In a nation as large as this, with the freedom of thought and communications we are afforded, have, tens of thousands of people believe they have had direct contact with ETs. In fact there are TV programs and Harvard professors who support them. Sometimes being in the minority on an issue is a tell that you may be mistaken. Mearsheimer, in the other hand, is an academic and an isolationist. He has no skin in the game when he argues for spheres of influence and denies that small nations have agency. He proves nothing. Winston Churchill was a real conservative, he did not recognize Poland as a nation that needed to be sacrificed on the altar of German interests. The world is lucky he did not. You could read more, or if that is too much work for you, you could look up the Center for Political Innovation. They might be right up your alley.
What's telling about your post is that your method of discrediting my sources is to characterize them as 'Alternative Radio' and 'YouTube', when in fact, they are Chalmers Johnson AT The University of Washington, and John Mearsheimer AT The University of Chicago. Are you saying that the mere fact they were RE-POSTED (and on multiple sites, btw) invalidates the credibility of the speakers and their academic institutions? Pretty pathetic.
As for believing the CIA orchestrated Maidan... Since CIA information about their premeditated role in the Iran coup is now unclassified, we know *from their own documents* that indeed they engage in this kind of thing. Does that alone prove that they orchestrated Maidan? No, but it should provoke curiosity. Without a doubt it proves that the possibility of CIA orchestration is infinitely more plausible than "UFOs" (your supposed analogy). I've read dozens of documents, and the evidence is clear: There was significant covert US astroturfing of the "revolution." So, perhaps your underlying desire is actually that you simply would like to see the Ukraine "sacrificed on the alter of US interests".
Hes just trying to argue details with you while deflecting the larger point which he knows any student of history is aware of, which is that the US totally regime changed Ukraine.
This is not in disupte, except by shitlords like the J V team below.
He tried to do the same to "Google", when of course we know that the reality for all those mediums is that they can, and do point to genuine facts and history. The trick is, as always, sorting it out. Something that Krycek here will not do, can not do.
Iran and the Maidan, 2 different things. Both are well documented. What is the point? You draw from a very narrow spectrum of opinion snd their is no evidence that you have synthesized anything you’ve read or watched at all. You are regurgitating. Besides, your sourcing is sophomoric. You cite three sources that agree with you position and you present them as fact. Taking some else’s opinion and citing them does not prove anything. It merely convinced the curious that you have nothing original to add. Do you know what a greek chorus is?
It's interesting to see you mock others for underestimating small nations' "agency" while at the same time insisting Yanukovych was a Russian puppet, since, if that were the case, then you'd have to concede that there's nothing strange at all about the understanding that large nations orchestrate regimes in small nations, including in modern-day Ukraine.
It's also interesting to see you mock supposed underestimation of small nations' agency even while you underestimate the agency of the wealthiest, most imperialistic nation the world has ever seen. This would be strange even if the US hadn't spent the past 75 years pursuing and achieving regime change and destabilization all around the world, especially but not exclusively in "small nations."
Also, your Churchill analogy is absurd for a number of reasons. Here are just a few: 1939 Germany aimed to conquer the UK along with the rest of Europe, which is a ridiculous fever dream when applied to 2022 Russia; Churchill literally ceded Poland to Soviet control at the end of WW2, which was of course just another example of more powerful nations deciding the fates of less powerful ones; and, oh yeah, Churchill wasn't risking global nuclear annihilation, since nuclear weapons didn't exist yet.
All of that is irrelevant when Putin is stating the reason for this is Ukraine's repeated desire to join NATO which came under Petroshenko who was Biden's butt buddy.
1) Prior to 2014, the year of the Maidan, Ukrainian politics were largely a contest played out by local oligarchs. The majority of these oligarchs preferred the Old Soviet mode of doing business with fortunes generated from corrupt privatization schemes where national assets were delivered to powerful insiders at a fraction of there true value. This policy is still intact in Russia and Belarus. Yanukovych was a creature of these politics, he was a local Donetsk thug in the service the local coal and steel oligarchs. They had a genuine interest in extinguishing any idea of western integration and maintaining the old system. These are just the facts. If you familiarized yourself with the post- Soviet Ukraine, it was obvious that there were some significant pro-Russian elements jn Ukraine. Yanukovych was one of them, a pro-Russian tool who had no where to flee except for Russia. 2)The US is an imperialist nation, so? I supported the right of the Vietnamese and the Afghans to struggle to regain agency. Not all small countries are as fortunate. That said, what of the Chechens? The Tibetans? The Kurds? Should they have no agency? 3) By 1939, Churchill had been arguing for a stronger position against Germany since the occupation of the Ruhr. Churchill could easily have surrendered Poland as a nation too distant and too foreign to worry about. Then came the invasion of France and Dunkirk. You seem fuzzy in the facts. Hitler’s goal was always Russia. He simply hoped to find acquiescence in the west with puppets like Petain. Churchill and Britain however would not yield. Ar the same time, Churchill was an imperialist and colonialist hack. Sometimes a person can be a vessel of both courage and villainy.. As for mocking others, there is polite way to respond to didacts and cynics.
Your sources? From your tone, it seems as if you only want to argue. If that's the case, no more from me. However, if you have more behind your position than everything Greenwald has stated is laughable, I would be interested.
Hes melted down against at least 20+ people who dared to disagree with him in this thread, while offering 0 evidence to support his positions.
He reminds me of another immature former poster who got banned for these same temper tantrums all the time.
No more from you. How did you know it was my birthday. Best present ever!!!
Yet churchill recognized that Poland can be sacrificed on the altar of Stalin's interests and recognized USSR sphere of influence.
The US and the Uk are not interfering in other countries affairs ever. At no level whatsoever. They have no foreign interests. Also, they didn't invade Serbia, Irak, Afghanistan, Libia, Syria, Vietnam etc and saddam had weapons of mass destruction while irakian soldiers were killing babies in incubators. If any of the above is false it's because I only heard it in an YouTube video. This info can't be found anywhere else and mainstream sources are denying all of the above which is clearly misinformation. Call the thought police.
Good to hear from a man who laughs a lot. Repeat what you said before a mirror and you'll bend over with laughing. Then again and you'll have thousands who fall down laughing. You must be a yoga laughter master.
"several thousand" Another lie.
History is the proof, as are the sources he cited, something you haven't done in this entire thread.
All you've done is throw childish, wordy temper tantrums like a spoiled little college kid.
Tell me, what history have you read about Ukraine? Name a single book written by a reputable source. That is all I’m asking. If you had read history, you wouldn’t be snipping at me.
No one held a plebiscite on invading Iraq. One of the largest anti - war demonstrations was held in DC before they began the war. A small clique of madmen started that war. Despite the lies and the media complicity most Americans did not support the objectives of the war. When no WMDs were found, support sank further. Support for the troops, however, is much different than support for the war. You seem to believe in the power of government lies and the stupidity of the people. To your initial point, small ideological groupules often imagine themselves to be the sole font to truth in a world filled with deceit and disinformation. In their little groups, they find cohesion among themselves and it is easy to convince themselves that only they see reality and that the public is simply befuddled. These group are generally always wrong. If you suspect you are a member of such a group, try reading a wider spectrum of opinion. Its free.
Good sources and thinking!
Mearsheimer is eloquent and brilliant. I've followed him some and it makes me wish I was one of his students! It would be an exciting class!
Why is the US sending arms to Ukraine for this?
Congress has not declared war and as far as I know we have no protection agreement with Ukraine. BEING THAT THEY ARENT IN FUCKING NATO.
When was the last time theCongress declare war? How many times has the US been engaged its military around the globe since then? You are either naive or not well-read.
What's "theCongress"? Asking for a friend who doesn't speak meth.
You’re the guy who wrote, ‘ THIS SHIT HAS TO FUCKING STOP. SOMEONE HAS TO BE ABLE TO HOLD THESE ELITE FUCKS ACCOUNTABLE.’. I call that speaking meth.
6 people died during the annexation of Crimea back into Russia where it belongs. Poll after poll has confirmed that is the will of the people there.
You maniacs like to cite CRIMEA as though it was one of history's greatest crimes.
No, that would be things like the A Bombing of Japan, the millions killed in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, the deliberate attempted extermination of aboriginal peoples and on and on.
But hey, "Crimea!" "!PTUIN kicked my dog!"
Hell, I lived so long in Ukraine that I actually know two(!) Crimeans who voted against becoming part of Russia.
Their Crimean neighbors have subsequently treated them with all the respect that an SS officer would have at the Jewish Antidefamation League.
For that matter, Pew Research, hardly a Russian cutout, found that support for joining Russia was quite high after the referendum. UN-sponsored polling indicated similar before the referendum and before the 2014 coup.
After the legitimate government in Kiev was overthrown in a coup, they didn't recognize the new post-Maidan regime. One could argue that Donetsk and Luhansk were the actual "loyalists", not "separatists".
“Don’t overstep”. Sigh…another control freak who likes to bark orders.
What are actual people saying about the Ukraine/Russia war in Canada right now Pete? I am genuinely curious, are people you know discussing it at all?
Our media is 100% for Ukraine. Oligarchs own us, too.
Liberals in Canada need a knee operation, they jerked it so much.
Despite our numerous political differences, I hope the Canadian people don't get sucked into the warmongering that is being pushed right now.
The founder of Wiki now says he ‘doesn’t trust it.’ Are you the designated agitator for Glenn’s piece today? Because your smugness causes others to stretch things - & if that’s what you’re all about - why don’t you do us a favor and disclose it?
You need to take Wiki-lie-to-to-you with a grain of salt…
I have to laugh - Wikipedia is the stated source of authority?
'Nobody should trust Wikipedia,' its co-founder warns: Larry Sanger says site has been taken over by left-wing 'volunteers' who write off sources that don't fit their agenda as fake news" - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trust-Wikipedia-founder-Larry-Sanger-warns.html
Jimmy Wales blocked me on Twitter. Hilarious.
Wiki now has an agenda.
It had to happen I guess.
When you’re linking to a Vox article called everything you need to know, you clearly don’t know much. And Wikipedia. Omg. Lmao
Saying "conspiracy theory" is not an argument.
https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-that-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-heres-why-132117
you link a vox article, and wikipedia. not exactly top notch sources of factual information.
I want to know what Romney, Biden, Kerry and Pelosi are really afraid will be discovered in Ukraine.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the illicit business interests of their children (bag men)
Awesome reply, great points.
Fab condensed version of 2014 coup and bonus points for correct ID of Eric Ciaramella as a CIA operative. Folks without your grasp of history should have seen the big red flag the moment Congress praised him as a whistleblower because real truth tellers are silenced, smeared, prosecuted and jailed.
Sadly, Tulsi will never be allowed to be the future. I talk to so many people who still call her a stooge and a puppet on her Assad romance. There are just too many people in our society unable to use critical thinking or that actually read a full article.
I used to once think they were all right wing nuts that were easily manipulated... turns out... that problem doesn't distinguish with sides.
I agree and I think during Trump's four years in office the propaganda attack linking him to Russia and Putin based solely on heresay, no evidence required, dumbed down the American public. The left was also involved in that, and are as guilty as the mainstream media they use to attack for their propaganda and lies. I really like Tulsi Gabbard!
Not to mention that when he ran for the presidency in 2012 against Obama the turd was heard dismissing some 40-50 percent of the population as loafers and people he would not concern himself with, once in office. His heartfelt disdain for the poor went viral, and no more Mitt R. This is just an opportunity to prove he loves his country. What BS from a self-serving ass who wants to return to the spotlight.
Physically, he's starting to look a lot like Chairman Xiden. As they said of Neil Young, so we can now say to Romney:
"Old man, look at your life, you're a lot like Brandon".
Joe...right on target
Great response.
Mitt Romney has no future in the republican party without kissing the war criminals ring. This is romney telegraphing the kiss while bending the knee to the biggest government ever: tyranny!
Which war criminal is that? There are so very very many?
I suppose we could hold up their official 8x12 glossy and everyone rates their heinous-ness by holding up 1-10 cards. That would be an amusing in-the-cathartic-sense website to make.
I guess instead of writing about this today, I'll just link to your post. Awesome as usual!
Long-time readers will note the eerie similarity to the build-up to the Iraq war.
Doesn't remind me of our build up to war with Iraq. We said Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and lied about al-qaeda's presence there. Back then there were people like Scott Ritter who refuted that, and he was in a position to do so, since he was an inspector general in that country until 1998. There were other's who refuted the Bush/Cheney claims of aluminum tubes and even allowed on news networks to denounce that war, as well as a left willing to stand up to the lies. The verbal back and forth between Putin and Biden which preceded the war in Ukraine was murky, and confusing, and almost seemed like a charade, leading many to believe it was never going to happen. I think the US purposely avoided being forthright and honest and did not inform the American people about Putin's demands and the consequences of ignoring them making the war in Ukraine a reality, so America looks innocent and Putin alone is the villain.
December 2021. Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded Thursday that the West “immediately” guarantee that NATO will not expand to include Ukraine and blamed the US for inflaming tensions in Eastern Europe and increasing the likelihood of war.
Putin fielded questions for about four hours at his annual year-end news conference, during which he reiterated his calls for NATO to halt its expansion to former Soviet republics, as well as his opposition to the West deploying missile systems near the Russian border.
When asked during the marathon session whether he could guarantee that he will not invade Ukraine, the Russian leader snapped: “It’s you who must give us guarantees and give them immediately, now, and not have idle talk about it for decades.”
Biden and his administration didn't give Putin an inch, nor did they inform the public about Russia's demands. The Iraq war didn't take people by surprise, but this one did, and it didn't provide the opportunity for any opposition being expressed either.
I love it when you and I find common ground Fran.
Well, common ground is often a good thing. Too bad that didn't happen between Russia and the US.
RUSSIA. MUST. BE. DESTROYED.
America, for over a century now.
I never felt that way, even as a child. I always thought both would have to get crazy to blow up the world and if they did, well, it was okay if I died, because I didn't want to be around a whole bunch of crazy adults.
Both populations wanted friendship. Neither populations mattered in the least. Matt Taibbi said today Russia was a prototype of the extreme oligarchy the West would later become.
I thought we were an oligarchy, since the few control the many. Money really talks to our politicians in this country and they are really good listeners.
Fran...with your knowledge of Ukes/Russia, you go deep, but your "we are an oligarchy" comment above, leaves me in question. I am guessing that you refer to the US.
My thought is that the US does go in and out from controls on issues, but not in a sense of any full oligarchy...i'll give to a small percent.
Most of our (US) problems stem from groups such as the Media, which further agitates feckless groups as in religious/non, black /white, sex, race, age, sport...i just do not see "the few control the many"...hey, i have always felt My Freedom, perhaps more so than most, i do think that for freedom to work for Me, i should execute freedom. thanks
Russia has essentially no democratic tradition, and was tutored by the Mongols back at the beginning.
Putin was elected. He has more support than most Western leaders. How many Americans support the broken shell of a man that we are told is the leader of the free world?
Childish.
So did ANY MSM cover Putin's talk? I don't subscribe to much MSM anymore, but do see headlines, et al. Did not see other than 30sec clip of Putin's speech, and no real analysis. And not much really in blogs/posts/substacks I read. I knew IN GENERAL Russia was very unhappy about potential NATO in Ukraine for several years. But were there any precipitating events that actually triggered the invasion NOW? I've not seen anything explaining why the invasion was NOW, vs say a year ago or a year from now. Just curious as to if there was a discrete 'trigger' that caused this, or more a case of 'might as well do it now, before things get any worse ".
Yeah, the NY Post, but I didn't need them to know this has been a demand for many years, or decades, but this time he sounded extremely adamant, and he wasn't going to wait a year, not months, but the demand was now!
There is plenty of blame to go around - but none of this excuses Putin for committing the ultimate war crime: aggressive war. It's all too clear whose troops are on which side of the border.
But by the same token, that doesn't excuse US officials (is Biden really in charge) for an idiotic provocation, almost as if they WANTED this war.
Putin made it clear, and his demands were rather simple, NATO is not to be at Russia's front door, and he didn't even demand we get those missiles out of Poland and Romania, the ones Obama installed in case Iran engages in some annihilistic ideas, but so arrogant are we, we never listen. So really who is at fault here?
The ABMs ringing Russia are all about a preemptive strike on Russia. Russia knows this very well.
https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/russian-strategists-debate-preemption-defense-against-nato-surprise-attack
It could actually "work" too. Only 20 to 30 million Americans would die. "Victory" - Keith Payne
"It could actually 'work' too."
Please don't tell Hillary.
14,000 ethnic Russians were killed in the Donbas.
No big deal?
Who killed them I wonder?
Hideous; I favor self-determination. But technically not a provocation to Russia, since it's internal to Ukraine. Provoking, but not legal justification for an invasion.
I gather artillery attacks were ongoing even as the Russians massed troops on the border; that's stupid, at best, and possibly intentional sabotage - by the notorious Azov Battalion, perhaps? How much control did the Ukraine gov't have over those people?
And a general note: unfortunately, essentially NO state willingly allows its territory to shrink. Russia certainly didn't, in the case of Chechnya. Personally, I think the only good solution is to kiss separatists good-bye, as Canada offered to do with Quebec (and didn't have to). So Ukraine's attacks on the separatists were immoral, but absolutely normal - and legal.
Putin had another option: fortify the border, maintaining a threat, AND "invade" only the separatist-controlled areas, to stop the attacks. That's what Biden meant by a "minor" invasion - that was an offer. There would have been no resistance and no, or very little, bloodshed.
I think he was trying to repeat his military successes in Chechnya and Georgia - which he got away with. Instead, he got caught with his hands in the rat-trap, and Russia with him. To say nothing of the entire world, if this goes nuclear.
If it goes nuclear, there will be nothing much left of the entire world.
At least this war has reminded people that the existence of nuclear weapons is a grave threat (the gravest threat, in my opinion).
Afterthought: the population in Mariupol is mainly Russian-speaking, the Azov creatures aside. So Russia is doing just what the Ukrainians did.
"They" have been wanting this war for many decades and they backed their ultimate enemy into a corner with the Maiden Square event organized by Nuland and her immediate superior, Biden as Step 1. Step 2 was the announcement that we would be putting missiles on Russia's back doorstep.
Step 3 was the infiltration of both the military by the Azov Battalion and the government by the Svoboda both successful at the highest levels. So in a few years the Ukraine officialdom became a Biden controlled government led by a pliable oligarch, Zelensky, in an anti-Putin government.
That suited Biden and his handlers to a T and as they hoped, Putin was either trapped into helplessness or he would feel obliged to do what he did. In either case, Biden's handlers were delighted. Putin, with a choice between castration and fighting back, chose to fight. However, Biden had set a trap that no one expected, a propaganda war of incredible dimensions. It veiled the fact that the new Azov military had been highly armed with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry while no one was looking.
Is that what Hunter Biden was doing for his $50K per month?
The sole difference I can detect is that the DOD doesn't appear to be on board with the idea. The State Department is out of control however, and the CIA is doing what the CIA always does, flirting with the edge of a broader war by funneling money to decrepit pieces of filth that we wouldn't acknowledge in any other situation.
It would be MOST instructive to get some video's of Iraq War justification spiel's side by side with current Ukraine justification spiel's to unambiguously show the similarities you mention.
I'll never forget the nonstop ghoulish fawning on the part of the MSM (CNN, specifically) as America carpetbombed a country that had neither attacked it, nor posed any direct threat. The Shock and Awe campaign was broadcast in real time, framed by shots of Old Glory waving in the wind and reverent gushings over the awesome military firepower on display. Meanwhile , down below, entire neighborhoods were obliterated. Pretty close to a textbook definition of terrorism.
A cousin on Facebook held Saddam Hussein responsible for all the lives lost in Iraq because he did not protect his own people. Master's degree and a husband who is a doctor and somehow that makes sense to her. People will engage in all manner of rationalizations to maintain America's "wholesome" persona. Children are indoctrinated to adopt a totally non-global perspective on the world, and in America due to her physical isolation it becomes easier. We can and do teach kids to have a global perspective when it comes to animals, but not people.
Jacques Ellul, in his masterwork, "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes", said that it is the educated who are most vulnerable to propaganda as most of what they know is second and third hand. I have a friend with a Master's too. And he believes everything CNN tells him. In his case, I think for him to believe otherwise, he would have have to discard his entire world view. He's met Glenn too, who he now says, "has lost his way". That's ridiculous, but there it is.
@ Bill Owen 🆗🤔
I've read Jacques Ellul carefully, which is, of course, how complex well written works must properly be treated. His references to "the educated" is not a linear "broad brush" or "one size fits all" academic extrapolation. His critique on this issue is that far too many students are not taught how to discern between correct and false information in the earlier stages of their education. The systematic deemphasis of learning the nuts and bolts of ethics and morals through the study of the Humanities and Cultural Anthropology, not to mention the dumbing down of general education Social Science requirements does not contribute to the development of a basic understanding, and thus appreciation, of advanced exploration and the subsequent acquisition of advanced knowledge. We need the antics of the clowns and questioning of the cynics to call to our attention the misbehavior of the fools and the corruption of the miscreants; but we must have knowledgeable journalists and jurists to inform their fellow citizens of the means and methods of repairing the ship of state, and charting a proper course.
As Usual,
EA☠
"We need the antics of the clowns and questioning of the cynics to call to our attention..."
Excellent turn of phrase, but don't you mean, "...questioning BY the cynics..."?
@ TAS/pop122 ✔
Your point is, as usual, well taken. The thought I was trying to convey was that sometimes the hyperbolic emphasis which some cynics employ can serve to sort of jolt us out of the bad habit of letting these societal miscreants get away with their chicanery.
I could have, as you have clearly noticed, more coherently stated had it read "antics of the clowns and excessive questioning by the cynics". My idea was to acknowledge the useful wisdom to be found in the thoughts of our comedians and satirists; George Carlin and Richard Pryor come to mind.
Anyway good 👀.
As Usual,
EA☠
I think your right since many don't recognize that the media in it's various forms are no more then propaganda outlets. I think those who are less educated are less inclined to follow the news and are not indoctrinated, which is what the news is all about. Just look at their diligent campaign of pushing the lies of the democrats in regard to Trump, and his ties to the Kremlin, and the most educated among us swallowed up that lie.
Fran...this has gone right over my head, for years, but natch "less educated are less inclined to follow the news" hence not "indoctrinated"...this is one point (at least for myself) that should be digested, since i had what you stated backward...re-read and bingo, i got a lot of answers.
Hence, some of those 140 IQers, once they get that defective news, that's their fertilizer and it sticks.thanks
I have a brother who has a Phd, and another who is dyslexic, intelligent, but has never been reliant on the printed word to understand politics, and is more inclined to use his intuitive self, especially during the Trump years. Greenwald's next article on the lies that the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation is something he never bought and neither did I, but the other brother bought it hook line and sinker since he has developed such a profound trust in papers like the NY Times who pushed the idea is was Russian disinformation. Now The Times finally admitted the laptop info was true, and no doubt something they always knew.
@ Fran 🤦♂️💥
Your informed thoughts and suggestions are often an interesting element in these discussions, but this obsessive regressive injection of the Trump bashing into virtually every topic is nothing more than boring repetition. If you can not reference, in the text of the author you are commenting upon, the topic of your choosing, would not that be tantamount to propaganda in the guise of topical coherence❔🐍🧪
As Usual,
EA☠
Sorry that bores you. I guess it didn't come to your attention that the democrats, and neocons, like Nuland, who was in Obama's state department and helped orchestrate the coup in Ukraine, and now in the Biden's state department, didn't conflate Trump hate, or as some like to call it, Trump derangement syndrome and the cold war hate of Russia? They certainly did. Isn't it now obvious the tensions between the US and Russia have now escalated to the point we might even have a nuclear war? In those Trump years it was made clear to Russia, to Putin, the west will never accept you. Read about the neocons and their world view and their agenda for Russia. Now they are 100% behind the democrats, but during the Bush/Cheney years the Republicans were the go to people they cultivated.
Bill..aaah haaa, "the educated, most vulnerable", natch they get IT second and third hand...love that.
I had a sneaky uncertainty about friends with a high IQ, one could never persuade...fresh air. thanks
Thanks!
More here: https://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/Why-do-some-people-not-understand-Jacques-Ellul.php
Here is some video of !PTUIN! killing civilians wholesale in Ukraine.
https://youtu.be/0yr-LaMhvro
Oh wait, never mind, it's all good, it's just America liberating the people of the Eyerack. Totally fine.
Yes. Thanks. I remember watching that live. It was just 'fireworks' at the time. The next couple days, when saw pics from the ground came in, the sobering reality left a very sick empty feeling, because, "We" did that. Based on lies. Esp since Saddam had been "our guy" when he waged war on Iran for us.
I’ll readily admit that I was agnostic about Iraq. I recognized the threat that the WOT represented to us, but I did not realize the importance of the Iraq War to the MIC at the time. I was still riding high on the relative peacefulness of the 90’s and couldn’t imagine that anyone would want a permanent warfare state.
Boy, was I wrong.
Yes, even Chris Hedges as recently as a day or two ago confessed to being similarly lulled by the quasi-detente of the 90s. And even during the Bush years, there was a fairly large segment that just thought "Jesus, Dubya is pretty dumb, but he's under the thumb of a gang of out-of-control neocons, we just have to get them out of office and everything can get back to normal peaceful times."
But meanwhile, not only was the MIC always still on the move, Davos globalists were advancing their financial interests in non-military ways. Now we have both a robust military lobby (and budget) and a healthy transnational oligarchical elite!
Clinton spent his time in the Presidency trying "bury" the 'Sovs' in the mud. It was his policies that created the oligarchs. Just as it was his policies that actually reduced life expectancy there by over 10 year. Yeltsin was installed as President, then ridden like a donkey. Just like today with that tv actor who never stopped playing President. He just changed studios.
You are correct, the MIC and their minions in the power structures never stopped plotting the destruction of the "Sovs".
WWIII started the day that 'buhs' ripped up the foundational ABM treaty, which was immediately followed by ringing Russia with ABMs. It's impossible to explicate in a single comment just how (deliberately) destabilising that was.
There are people in the MIC who genuinely believe that they can launch a first strike on Russia and that they will not be able to "respond" as their retaliatory capability will have been destroyed. And if not "destroyed", then degraded to the point where a counterstrike would 'only' kill 20 to 30 million Americans. As Keith Payne said, "Victory is possible".
https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/keith-payne/
Real men go to Moscow!
I remember watching that night too. It was on Broadcast TV also. The reporters were almost gleeful. But, I also remember the pics in magazines and on the CBS news with Cronkite, of N. Vietnam being carpet bombed roughly 30 yrs earlier. So, TV reporters seemed to have a love affair with military carnage even back then. And, after its over, the story can continue for awhile with the plight of the dead, refugees, etc. Makes for a long news cycle and great for ratings. But, not sure I'd call it terrorism. Terrorism seems smaller in scale, more discrete. That night was more like a National Flogging, so the entire country learned a lesson. And, I guess the lesson was, if ANY of you individually piss us off, ALL of you are going to pay, and pay dearly. And then we decided to move in and stay for many years to make sure they didn't forget the lesson.
I know, people tend to think of "terrorism" as ragtag, small-scale, local. So "state-sponsored terrorism" if you prefer. Here's one fairly typical definition:
"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or its citizens to further certain political or social objectives."
I remember it well, and I remember feeling just as helpless watching the train wreck. But unlike that train wreck, we really are in danger here at home if Putin decides he's in danger and begins hitting buttons. That's what's so disturbing about this time around.
Lillia...got that right...yep
Never bring Mittens to a street fight.
The second I saw Tulsi annihilate Lil' Mitts after his pathetic attempt to check her, I put my popcorn in the microwave and waited for Glenn's article like a kid on Christmas Eve haha
Romney, 'The View' types, all of the swamp rats are the metaphorical Grima Wormtongues of the world, boisterous and arrogant until confronted face to face and stared down. I wonder how any of those loud-mouthed cowards, the toothless Chihuahuas who think they are Golden Retrievers, would react if someone stood a foot in front of them and denounced them as gutless cowards, corrupt sell-outs and spineless shills?
I would love to see Glenn debate Romney. He'd gut him like a fish.
Dear God, that would be a slaughter haha
https://newfastuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Ep9WpmU.png
I saw him debate Dersh and General Hayden in Toronto. Fish guts everywhere!!! After the debate at the reception Glenn refused to shake Hayden's blood soaked paw.
I'd love that as well...however Romney would play the Russia card, much like Kinzinger did with Carlson and Hillary did with Gabbard. The swamp rats are gutless cowards and witless worms.
Hillary called her a Russian asset. Hillary was pissed at Tulsi for telling the truth. Hilldawg sold (approved as SoS) our uranium to Russia in return for speaking engagements for her rapist husband. Hillary puts rhe ASS in Russian asset.
Now it appears the Clintons want to resurrect the Clinton Foundation (or whatever) as a ruse to provide charitable contributions to Ukraine. Guess they see another opportunity to grift a nation (remember Haiti?) or get their hands on some of that 13 billion that's being sent over (to who or what?). Mittens voted for that. Republicans better be careful, we may not give them that expected majority in Nov. No war!
I think half of it was Hillary was pissed at seeing a woman with no connection to her having a legitimate chance at winning the DNC nomination just four years after she, Hillary had lost the general election. Never underestimate the spite that narcissistic psychopaths hold.
Actually, most of history has banality behind it.
Didn’t think of that.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/113/983/93c.jpg
Hunter...thanks for the reminder
If Gabbard hadn't dropped her suit against Clinton, and hadn't endorsed Biden, I'd be a huge fan of hers.
Those two things really hurt her cred with me, imo.
Spot on, same here. But she is getting some of my respect back.
She also signed for the war on Iraq, after it was clear that they had no WMD. She is also literally in love with the US military. I could go on about torture and her guru, et al, too, but that's a whole other topic.
There are no real heroes sadly. Or very very few.
There are but I think they are smart enough to avoid politics :(
We don't, as a country, even understand the first amendment, how can we possibly understand the correct use of the word 'treason'?
Mr. Draft Dodger Romney has a lot of nerve calling LtC. Gabbard treasonous. The filthy coward.
i try to steer away from ad hominem comments / arguments - but find this to be a provably factual statement
the further we go with Romney , the closer we get to recognizing the Fungus. Ten years ago , i never would have thought such.
Well Glenn, you are a right-wing fanatical nutjob aren't you? Why can't everybody be committing treason left and right? This follows up excellently with Matt's article about the new whataboutism and how we are truly living through 1984 in the here and now!
Clown world is as clown world does. That is our new world.
Taibbi and Greenwald make such a great one-two punch. My two faves nowadays.
Glenn's pellucid prose and sedulous, hard news style complement Matt's wry, pop-culture punctuated, feature-style writing so well, too. Love these guys!
Those two and Bari Weiss are my substack go-tos.
Bari Weiss called Gabbard an Assad "toady" on Rogan's show. Then she couldn't even define the word. She is definitely not in the same league as Taibbi and Greenwald.
I suspect Ms. Weiss would amend that assignation today. But I think both would agree that Ukraine and Syria have one big foreign elephant/bear in common, and causing common commotion (read: warmongering).
Not even close.
Yeah, Weiss's publishing continues to be 100% support for Ukraine, no mention the origins of the conflict, nothing other than swamp rat talking points. Weiss may be right 80% of the time but she'd dead wrong here.
The complete lack of any context for what happened in Ukraine, very much reminds much of the reaction post 911. "Why do they hate us??"
Lack of context or any real understanding of history, is why people ask a similarly clueless question today. "Why would Putin invade Ukraine?"
In both cases the utter lack of any understanding is why the 'answers' to those questions were, and are so bad.
"Because they hate our freedoms"
And today, "Because Putin is evil and crazy"
I am also reminded of Glenn's visit to Ottawa the day after our 'terror' attack where he tweeted that, "Canada, at war in the middle east for 13 years, is shocked that they got attacked."
Good Canadians were completely outraged at him for saying that, but hey, I learned I think by grade two that, "actions have consequences". Pull a doggies tail hard enough and long enough and any dog will bite you. Bad dog?
I ran up to the Hill within minutes of the attack to bear witness. What a day that was!
I can understand that. Bari's appearance on Pennywise Stelter's show where she gave him a verbal Ultra Combo worthy of Killer Instinct when he condescendingly asked "Who's [sic] the people stopping the conversation?" went a long way to finally fading the stain of the infamous Rogan "Toady Incident" from my memory. She has been doing some good work. I appreciate that she stands up for free speech and lends her platform to numerous other heterogenous thinkers.
I also like Andrew Sullivan. I don't share as many views with him as I do Glenn and Matt, but he is an intelligent, erudite writer, and I appreciate his willingness to tackle challenging topics and work through them publicly, often in realtime.
I have different politics than all three, but we absolutely agree on the role and importance of the first amendment, and nothing is at greater risk right now than our right to free speech.
I totally agree with that sentiment.
People still tell me, "it's a private company, they can do what they want"
They don't know or care that the censorship is a partnership between government and private companies.
That aside, social media is the new commons, and no one should control the commons. I maintain that Twitter, FB, others, are "common carriers" like the phone company.
Even emails are being censored now. Google goes into drive and deletes files.
We lost.
As soon as a company cuts deals with the government, it ceases to be private. People who say that line are either shills or have no clue either that the company is connected, or what private actually means.
I tried to get onto CBC.CA this morning, and… Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.cbc.ca/" on this server.
Reference #18.162b3417.1647449520.90fea11
I have been off corporate "news" for some time. When I am exposed to it, it is a shock to my system. Great journalism out there for those of us that seek it out. Unfortunately, many Americans are too busy or uninterested and they fall for the malarkey.
I feel ya. I was visiting family the other day and they had a network news program on in the background. I was shocked how many blatant lies the program was spewing.
At one point, I was basically live "fact checking" them and telling my family how they can check the receipts on all this.
... yes, I am a barrel of monkeys at reunions and bar mitzvahs haha
I have (delayed) family functions coming up. Imagine me making you proud.
I think I'll get the ball rolling with a non-chalant, "Anyone ever hear Apollo's Lyre?"
Me too. I was tired being lied to on a daily basis. Now I wouldn't watch a network newscast even if it were projected onto the ceiling of my bedroom.
Disagree on Andrew Sullivan, though sorry to do so because I used to like him too. But I find he will only take on challenging topics when there is little cost to doing so, and then only as an intellectual exercise, never to effect change. He won't take an unpopular stand without extreme, almost nonsensical hedging to offset the damage (Trump has a point on this or that, but is a uniquely evil authoritarian who must be stopped at all costs, etc.).
While I doubt he would be so bold as to reprise his Iraq War zealotry (accusing dissenters of being a "fifth column"), you certainly will not hear the slightest whisper of anti-war sentiment out of him on Ukraine until this is long over (God willing) and such talk is back to being edgy-but-acceptable among intellectuals.
I think the cancellation which brought him to Substack was likely more the result of miscalculation than principle.
Yeah, I think so Sullivan knows better most times, but like you said.
I agree with Bari less often than Glenn or Matt, but I still enjoy her Substack.
All three took big risks by standing up for their beliefs. They didn't give a shit about getting canceled and took strong stands in favor of, what I believe, is the most important issue in our society today. I mean seriously, Greenwald resigned from the company he founded?! Weiss could have just coasted and kept a prestigious position with the Iconic liberal newspaper/media empire. Matt and Glenn both get accused of being conservatives just because they do interviews outside of CNN and MSNBC?
As I said earlier, I doubt we'd vote the same way on many ballot issues, but they're fighting for our country in an unusually noble way which most 'journalists' don't have the integrity, or wisdom to do.
Agreed.
Why I'm a paid subscriber for Greenwald but not Weiss.
I'm a paid subscriber for both and read them both consistently. Even when I disagree with Bari, she doesn't piss me off so that I dump the paid subscription (like I did with Matt Yglasias and the Intercept).
(Ah, exercising with 8-letter words today, I see.)
Haha! Guilty as charged, my friend. Good to see you in the comments again; I hope you've been well!
Well, I'm a bit shaken up that my fellow libertarians and Classical Liberals (including GG, in the first ever instance of disagreement) don't seem to share my opinion that Canadian Fascism (not to mention the dying U.S. police State) is nothing compared to the Russian sort.
But I guess I quibble. In any case, you (and a few other otherwise-like-minded) are the reward for my part-time passing perusal of punctual posters.
Here's the difference. Russia: you don't have free speech so don't get caught saying something I don't approve of or I will punish you. West: You absolutely have free speech but don't say something I don't approve of or I will punish you.
I am banned from Twitter. If I try to comment at CBC, in the same manner as I do here, about 3)% of my comments are "deactivated". Before I post there, my comments are held for "premoderation" Tell a CBC'er that that might be a problem and they call you a trumper or a russian bot.
CBC officially hates Assange now too, and work to destroy him.
That's some good writing! I finished your sentence exactly correctly (i.e. exactly as you wrote it!) in my mind before I could finish reading it.
The people's responses to what is going on in Ukraine not only results from a propaganda oriented media on all levels, but also that most Americans are really not informed about our recent history. Talk to them about our extending NATO as the major factor in what is happening now, and if you don't get a blank stare you get an argument based on ignorance. Years ago people were more informed, but back then the media saw it as an obligation to actually inform the public, and there were people who could rightly call themselves journalists instead of self serving talking heads hired by big tech.
People do not realize that this was Russia's red line for over 30 years. The swamp rats didn't think Russia would commit force to ensure that red line wasn't crossed. They were wrong on both counts, and combined with Afghanistan, in a non-government job, one could say "three strikes and you're out."
Putin may be a bastard, but his actions are logical. Blinken and the rest of the swamp rats refused to negotiate on Ukraine. What was Putin supposed to do as he needs the ice for his tanks to maneuver on before the spring thaw. Wait another year while Ukraine is reinforced with tanks, jets, missiles and troops? Not only was his hand forced, but the utter stupidity of the swamp rats pushed him into the arms of the CCP. This is the worst possible outcome because we have the least impressive and dimmest as leaders.
Edit: I apologize to anyone who has been called dim, as my above comment was an insult to you.
Everything the democrats did, from trying to oust an elected president based on lies and he was no more then Putin's puppet, set the ground and maybe deliberately for this to happen. Doesn't remind me of our build up to war with Iraq. We said Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and lied about al-qaeda's presence there. Back then there were people like Scott Ritter who refuted that, and he was in a position to do so, since he was an inspector general in that country until 1998. There were other's who refuted Bush/Cheney claims of aluminum tubes and even allowed on news networks to denounce that war, as well as a left willing to stand up to the lies. The back and forth between Putin preceding the war in Ukraine as presented by the Biden administration was murky, and confusing, and almost seemed like a charade, leading many to believe it was never going to happen. I don't think the US was ever clear about Putin and his demands, and why we now have a war in Ukraine.
December 2021. Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded Thursday that the West “immediately” guarantee that NATO will not expand to include Ukraine and blamed the US for inflaming tensions in Eastern Europe and increasing the likelihood of war.
Putin fielded questions for about four hours at his annual year-end news conference, during which he reiterated his calls for NATO to halt its expansion to former Soviet republics, as well as his opposition to the West deploying missile systems near the Russian border.
When asked during the marathon session whether he could guarantee that he will not invade Ukraine, the Russian leader snapped: “It’s you who must give us guarantees and give them immediately, now, and not have idle talk about it for decades.”
Biden and his administration no doubt didn't give Putin an inch, nor did they inform the pubic about Russia's demands, but simply said they were lying about it being normal to amass troops along Ukraine's eastern border. The Iraq war didn't take people by surprise, but this one did, and it didn't provide the opportunity for any opposition being expressed either. America good, Russia bad.
Oh, M. Stephen Sanford! I have so loved your posts, not the least reason of which is our close agreement on big pictures of things.
But...you and GG, I suppose...and Tulsi, my beloved...and even Tucker. You all are breaking my heart.
We settle up later. The fox is in the chicken coop, and the cat is out of the bag.
We respond to the immediate threat. Call it triage if you must.
What threat?
Seriously what threat? Show me our protection agreement with Ukraine?
You mis-understand, M. Icon. I'm only referring to the threat of further "empiring" by today's Fascist empire, not it's current "Special Military Operation."
Putin will take as much of Ukraine (ne: Russia, after all) as he wants and Russians (especially Generals) let him.
What happens next, I do not know. Do you?
I spent a year working in an office with 2 Russians, a Ukrainian, an Estonian and a Pole. I feel I have a unique perspective here. I dare not even begin to speak my thoughts openly. All of these people were in the US for less than 10 years for various reasons. The Ukrainians thoughts on things were pretty remarkable to me, and let me know most of what we are being fed is something we should all puke back up.
NATO is just PutinHitler's excuse.
Perhaps I am just ignorant.
I would never compare Putin to Hitler, unless you're excusing the millions of Jews, Poles, and others killed in his concentration camps, or those who died fighting a war, and who number in the many millions, and took the lives of 25 million Russians. Perhaps Timothy you are Insensitive.
Holy shit I would high five you for this post if I could Fran.
M. Fran, I promise you, I don't want to be insensitive, and I don't mean to be insensitive, not to any individual.
Just as it is true that no human being should have had to die from Covid-19, no human being should have ever had to die in war, and no human being should ever have been a slave to another.
But my strong opinion remains that Putin IS today's equivalent of Adolph Hitler, and I don't even mean to be insensitive to him!
But HE bombed hospitals and neighborhoods. If YOU had lost a child to the Russian Special Military Operation....
Also, on a lighter note, I don't follow the logic of your first sentence. Why are you even asking me to "excuse" the millions of Jews, Poles, and others, or why, in condemning Mr. Putin, I am "excusing" Hitler?
I read the hospital was evacuated before the strike, and the reason it was hit is they had installed ground guns that were firing. In Mariupol the Ukranian military, nazi's. are preventing anyone from leaving, so they are keeping the people in harms way. If you are at all familiar with our military exploits through decades of war, and interventions where we have killed millions even before our middle eastern wars do you also reference us as Hitleresk? War is not something I believe in and I have always been active in the anti-war movement. However I am not so naive as to vilify Russia, for example, and not see my own country's hand in this war. This war never had to have happened if the US, starting with Clinton, had not begun a journey of bringing more and more countries into NATO, and helped orchestrate a coup that ousted an elected pro-Russian president. Ukraine militarized it's eastern border under it's new regime where neo-nazis are a significant part of it's military and where some 14, 000 were killed in the Donbass over a period of seven years. To answer your last statement, well, in no way can Putin be compared to Hitler. If you can't see that one can only assume you are incapable of evaluating the carnage he caused, or are excusing it.
Yeah, I hear you about being skeptical about the war stories one hears these days. And we seem to be in agreement about a good many things, so I offer to stop using the childish monicker "PutinHitler," or otherwise snidely refering to similarities in these two particular "human" beings, if you will forgive me for offending you.
I'm pretty sure there are very few people in the world that actually know what Putin is thinking. I believe most of his own people are baffled at the thought of what's going on right now. I would assume most of his most staunch supporters are a bit upset at their loss of status because of this invasion.
It's likely as you say, an excuse, but one we didn't have to offer up to him on a platter after decades of very smart people telling us all this would be the result.
Agreed. (And NATO should have at least been replaced when its war (the Cold War) was successfully concluded.)
However, The much bigger issue today, this moment, is the new iron curtain being erected by Putin. The West's response to the invasion of a Western-oriented nation is completely appropriate: Russia must be made a pariah, lest Putin be, in any way, rewarded for his international belligerence.
NATO, per se, and its needle in Putin's side, is pure sideshow now. Putin will get his half of Ukraine, and he (HE, NOT us) will have resurrected a moribund NATO, which will include rump Ukraine, and possibly Finland and Sweden, because it appears that only NATO national boundaries will be respected by this latest Russian Fascist.
There is still a way to go about things involving treaties and creating a split between either Putin and the CCP or Putin and the other Russian oligarchs.
I'd suggest my initial four-for-four treaty I proposed before....save with an added clause of forcing Russia to recognize Taiwan as a 'sovereign state' which it 'would commit to defending if attacked.' Accepting such a treaty would split the alliance with the CCP, turning it down would earn the wrath of the Russian oligarchs.
As I said before, I like the way you think, M. SS!
I think in this case you are, sadly.
When the Soviet Union collapsed and the disarmament talks occurred, it was written into the agreement that Ukraine would never be in NATO.
Then Petroshenko got all butthurt and tried to get Ukraine into NATO on Biden/Obama's watch. You saw how that turned out when Putin annexed Crimea.
Now here we are again and Ukraine is pushing for NATO acceptance and boom NATO doesnt have their back and boom Putin again has invaded Ukraine.
Now you see this article here, where Glenn is pointing out how Tulsi Gabbard is like "Wait you had bio weapons in Ukraine and didnt protect them when you knew war was about to happen" and getting called a traitor.
ITS ALL BULLSHIT
Its all cover for the Iranian nuclear deal. The same shit Obama did. The same shit Trump took us out of. The same country whose enemies Bush Jr. destroyed.
Now the same Bush neocons and the same Obama/Biden Iran pals are willing to do ANYTHING to let Iran get nukes, and so Putin is abusing that status.
WAKE THE FUCK UP EVERYONE ITS ALL ABOUT IRANIAN NUKES HERE
Yes, but the current events in Ukraine are unique and world-changing, as much so as any other post-WWII.
Queue the Tom Macdonald!
Love it
Romney is a Republican John Kerry. Both are repulsive snakes, and not even of the in the grass variety. Lacking anything remotely resembling character, they reliably act in pure self-interest.
I prefer likening him to another failed Massachusetts liberal, Mike Dukakis, however your equivalency is appropriate as well.
At least Mr. Dukakis was honest in his Party affiliation.
To the extent that formal party affiliation has any meaning in the age of the Uniparty Eunuchs.
True. But I kinda push back on giving in to TOO much cynicism. I still feel we use the Republicans to hammer the Democrats, then not let the Republican strain of Statism/Police-of-the-World shoot us in the foot, uh...so to speak. If the Republicans start warmongering, we hammer them with the Democrats.
What else are we going to do? Should we break up like the Soviet Union did?
Jo...I like that, they fit each other like OJ and his glove, just have to look close. thanks
Didn't both of em have relatives "employed" by Ukrainian gas companies? What are the odds?
I prefer the words of an honorable person who has, to my knowledge, always told the truth as she sees it, to the words of an admitted liar who says what people want to hear in order to garner votes.
I do not agree with many, if not most of Tulsi Gabbard’s political views but I believe her to be an honorable person. I would vote for her for political office.
Mitt Romney has shown himself to be devoid of honor.
I donated to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign in August 2019 when the Democratic Party bosses were opposing her inclusion in debates, even though I am a Republican. By the way, since then I have received 50+ emails a day (on an address used only for political things) from the Democratic Party organizations. That is more than 40,000 so far.
People like Romney and Liz Cheney pontificating about treason and patriotism remind me of atheists wielding out of context Bible verses.
Or environmentalists who use private jets all of the time and who have ocean-front mansions.
The misappropriation of the word “treason” with the intent to attack, defame, and marginalize those with whom you disagree is dangerous for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is diluting its purpose and utility in describing a person’s behavior. Much like constantly and inappropriately using “racism”, “white supremacy”, and “[fill in the blank]-phobia”, it escalates things to the point where there is nowhere to go, attenuates the meaningfulness of the terms, and leaves us with precious little to describe and characterize actual malicious and malignant behaviors.
And it’s intellectually lazy. Those levying this type of spurious accusations do so to avoid engaging the argument, either because they can’t (due to a dearth of knowledge and intellectual capacity) or because it is simply expedient not to (i.e., the insult is the entirety of the point).
I find this case, though, morally objectionable. Unless these grandstanding assclowns have taken the oath, put on the uniform, and stood a watch, they can fuck all the way off.
I agree with Glenn that being a service member does not put you beyond reproach. In fact, I think it necessarily raises expectations regarding a person’s conduct. That said, those leveling an accusation like this against a former or current service member better come armed with receipts.
Absent those receipts, people like Senator Romney should simply be grateful to those protecting their First Amendment rights (potentially with their lives), opt to exercise those rights more judiciously and responsibly, and afford those they would attack the courtesy of expressing themselves without baseless, classless, mindless, sanctimonious, and chickenshit accusations. They don’t deserve them, people like Senator Romney shouldn’t make them, and we don’t want to hear them, particularly from people like Senator Romney.
Steve you said exactly what I was thinking.
Ben Shapiro and Bill Maher recently discussed this very thing, and were largely in agreement: The left needs to knock off the intellectually lazy invective. I recommend the discussion to all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflisXO5mIQ
The intent may not be merely to dilute, but to invert its meaning. "Traitor" is selected for those who risk their lives and livelihoods for their country. War is peace etc. See Taibbi's Orwell piece https://taibbi.substack.com/p/orwell-was-right.
Awesome post
Many thanks! I appreciate it!
"If there is any one overarching, defining hallmark of a tyrannical culture, it is the refusal to tolerate any dissent from or questioning of official government policy, and to criminalize such dissent by equating it with treason. Indeed, many of the same Americans who are doing exactly this love to flamboyantly express horror as Russia does the same against its own war opponents.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find any despot in history who does not weaponize accusations of “treason" against dissidents as a central instrument for control. That U.S. discourse has now descended completely to that level is barely debatable. Just look at the last forty-eight hours of treason accusations against Gabbard, to say nothing of the last six years of liberal anti-Trump mania, to see how acceptable and reflexive such behavior has become."
Hermann Goering had some practical life experience in such matters, and this is what he said when he was waiting to be executed after Nuremberg:
"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
'Why, of course, the people don't want war,' Goering shrugged. 'Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.'
'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.'
'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"
http://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html#:~:text=%22Oh%2C%20that%20is%20all%20well,exposing%20the%20country%20to%20danger.
FOUR draft deferments were sought and granted to this coward POS. How he can call anyone treasonous is one for the books. Anyone who votes for this slug needs to have their head examined. One of the lowest slime bags in public life.
Not...take it easy on "slime bags", thanks.
I mean, it's a little hard to admit that I voted for this turd Romney, but i've since been disabused of the notion that he is harmless. Another agent of the uniparty - the war party.
I only voted for him as the lesser of two evils, and now I question that judgment!
A lot of curious silence about this from the people who told us for years that Trump will arrest journalists because he's a fascist and that's what fascists do.
Yeah, TDS is a form of hypocrisy, no doubt. Whatever you think of his politics (or his "narcissism"), the State (the powers-that-be that today reside primarily in the Democrat Party and its lackeys like Mitt Romney) railroaded DJT like never done to an individual before in history, and those who didn't like him cheered it on. Their chickens are coming home to roost.
With each passing day -- and accompanying disaster -- under this criminally incompetent administration, Trump's legacy is looking better and better. How many wars did he get us into again? How many lands did Putin invade? How was inflation and the price of energy? Which despots did we go begging hat in hand to sell us oil we once provided for ourselves? How many fentanyl-packing illegals, rapists, and child traffickers strutted freely across our southern border?
Can America withstand another three years of this "leadership"?
Timothy...boy, you got that right
Gabbard is a very competent person of high integrity and not a swamp thing like most politicians. She is a prime candidate to be the first woman president of the US, and she would make a great one. As a result, she is also a prime target for smear by the left. The left could never win an election without smear tactics and cheating, so it has begun with Gabbard.
I agree with just about everything Tulsi has to say on foreign policy for this country. Her hanging around in the public eye can only lead one to assume she’s going to run for some political office. For me, she’s going to have to explain why she supported Bernie sanders in 2016. Add to that why she is a member of the World Economic Forum young and upcoming stars. Finally, how she could have supported our demented, corrupt president in the 2020 election are all troubling. No one, including Tucker ever holds her to account about all this. These are all disqualifying positions for me.
Integrity or not, Gabbard's political views and positions are solidly in the Progressive camp, and that's why she will never get my vote. However, Romney is a Swamp creature deluxe and should be kept far away from any position in which he can have even the slightest effect on public policy. His attack on Gabbard is deranged--and thankfully has been hard to miss, even by some in the MSM. He just hurt himself badly.
I love this indent, and its well-written comments, but...
Tulsi Gabbard should be the next REPUBLICAN candidate for POTUS.
With her willingness to compromise on her (for lack of a better word, but I think you know what I mean...) socialism at home, coupled with her seemingly Trump-like ability to remain un-captured by today's greatest evil, the stealth Western police/surveillance State as represented by the Uni-Party, a phrase I hate but peeps here seem to recognize sympathetically.
Can you give me a citation where Tulsi either explains why she was a Bernie supporter or renounces the socialist? She “remains un captured by today’s greatest evil…” well can you show me where she explains or renounces the worst evil we face, the globalists at the World Economic Forum? She’s a Trojan horse to me. Many are seduced by her reasonable anti war policies.
I cannot, and I am not going to search for it at this point. For all I know, Gabbard still "supports" Bernie Sanders, and even his socialism. I think asking her about her views on the World Economic Forum is an excellent question for her to answer for the wider public during the primaries (I doubt she WILL run for the Republican nomination; I just have that wish).
Finally, you may be right, and I have been seduced, but I still hold out hope that she, and ANY similar Democrat, might remain un-captured, and therefore of high value to we anti-Statists.
She appears to be an anti-statist but appearances can be deceiving. This country is at the end of its rope with bad or deceptive politicians. She seems too good to be true because no one has asked her to answer the tough questions and I suspect (sorry for being so cynical but I’m 72) there’s a reason for that too. It will kill this country if we elect a Trojan horse who turns out to be a globalist with a dash of socialist.
I cannot, nor would not, argue against your well-written worry here. Plus, your cynicism, not to mention your "years of experience," are reasons to listen to you, imo.
I do still disagree with your last statement. I think the country that could survive a DJT is stronger than you think.
The DNC will never embrace or advocate for her after she shamed them in 2016 for cheating, and stepped down.
IF, and only if, she runs as an independent, would she ever win the WH, making history not only as the first female president, but the first one from a 3rd party, revolutionizing the U.S. political landscape forever.